California's Proposition 1A: Bullet Train Would Take Funds From Schools

When I first heard of the bullet train I was skeptical, then thinking about it, it seemed better, a good alternative to more polluting air travel from LA to the Bay area and Sacramento.  

Our governor who jets 350 miles to the capital every work day won't be able to use it since the Sacramento leg certainly won't be completed until after he leaves office, but still, if the price is decent, it could have lots of passengers, and, when filled, rail touts itself to be the greenest form of travel.

Of course, the catch is that there is no promise that the ride would be affordable.

The biggest catch though is that there will be no new bonds floated for this wonder ride.

From LA Times columnist George Skelton ( with whom I seldom agree and whose strident support of Proposition 11 we aren't supposed to question even though his daughter works for the Prop 11 campaign) I've found some news in "Bullet train would be grand, but can we afford it?

The Prop. 1A camp advertises that the 800-mile rail line would be built "without raising taxes." That's one of its problems: no dedicated revenue source, unlike previous great public works. Pat Brown's water project was financed primarily by irrigation districts and municipalities contracting for the water. The freeway system was financed by taxes paid at the gas pump.

The bullet bonds would drain money from other general fund programs: education, healthcare, welfare, prisons, parks.

We are having enough problems with our educational system already. 

Skelton also notes that Reason Magazine believes that the cost of the rail line will climb to 81 billion by the time it's complete from the project 33 for the first leg.  Private, federal, and local sources are supposed to help out, but not a one has put an offer on the table.

Also note the funding for the campaign:

Backers contend that the project would create 160,000 construction-related jobs. That's why a coalition of 2,000 heavy construction companies and 80,000 union workers -- called the California Alliance for Jobs -- is a staunch supporter of Prop. 1A.

California public construction is usually based on overpayment to companies that reward their owners and managers first and tend to hire foreign workers whenever possible.    The businesses have lots of money for campaign donations and money for media ads to throw around.  Few politicians and even fewer news media sites dare stand in their way.

Schwarzenegger has recently indicated, once again,  by calling (again) for a change to the amendment of the US constitution to allow foreign born citizens to become president, that he's aiming for the Oval Office in 2012.  I'm sure he'd like some of the huge amounts of money the owners of California's overpaid public construction companies would get from the Prop 1a's Bullet Train  job to help him ride a rail to the White House in 2012.  Look for a guy with an Austrian accent and Kennedy wife to show up with a 'broom' promising to clean up DC.  If you see him, run, run hard, run fast.  He's already knee capped California and he's coming for the rest of the nation.

Skelton also quite rightly points out that though nations can print money when they get into difficulty, states can't.

So it's your child's education, vs the behemoth Bullet Train.   A better education for your children might get them into a college with a better teachers and more opportunities.  It could also help with scholarships, which could mean less college related debt.

At this time, hurting our education capability even more than we have already is a prescription for more violence in the streets.  

Better education for all, can mean a safer, more prosperous state.  Maybe we could even afford that bullet train, say in a decade or so.

It's your choice.