Reason.tv: Porker of the Month for February 2011 - Rep. Jerrold Nadler!

Reason.tv presents Citizens Against Government Waste's Porker of the Month for February 2011:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)!

Rep. Nadler is pushing full steam ahead on a $53 billion spending spree for High Speed Rail projects. This of course is after the 8 billion spent on High Speed Rail in the stimulus bill. Both barely begin to cover the estimated $500 billion dollars required for the plan, which many state governments have already rejected due to the massive cost.

Congratulations Rep. Nadler, you are Citizens Against Government Waste's Porkers of the Month for February, 2011!

"Porker of the Month" is written and produced by Austin Bragg. Approximately 2 minutes.

For more info on Citizens Against Government Waste and the Porker of The Month, visit cagw.org.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions of all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    No form of mass transit makes money?!?!?

  • ||

    High speed rail funding is pork? But, but...China!

  • ||

    Chinese super train is guarantee to loose money. Why do you think their company wants revenue guarantee bond to build California's train?

  • DADIODADDY||

    Just arrrested, the chinese super train uber manager...been on some of those trains...no so great.

  • creech||

    Nadler represents a district (Nearly 70% white, east side of Manhattan and
    parts of queens and brooklyn) where the inhabitants may actually ride a high speed train between D.C. and Boston. Not that they want to pay for it by themselves, of course. It isn't enough to know that some cowboy out there in Montana is tending steers right now in a storm just cause he can't bear the thought of diners at Smith & Wollensky going without prime rib. No, the cowboy has to be made to pay for cosmo lawyer to zip off to D.C. to lobby to outlaw trans-fats.

  • fish||

    Jerrold Nadler....Porker of the Month....would have been much funnier 7 years ago.

  • db||

    Check the editing...pretty sure you guys just cut and pasted last month's announcement, which had a shared prize.

  • Corey||

    Anyone who rails (lol) against spending on high-speed trains has clearly never been to Europe and seen how easy, punctual (no traffic, just imagine), reliable, not susceptible to weather problems, and accessible they are to EVERYONE. They are a high upfront cost, but it's worth it in the long run.

    In the mean time, every American will have to continue spending $20-60,000 on a car (or two) so they can sit in a cluster commute on the highway for hours. Old people will continue to have to stay in their depressing retirement homes because they can't drive, and kids will still require that their parents take them *everywhere*. I know this place is called "Reason" (and I often enjoy your "nanny-of-the-month"), but you need a reasonable lesson in urban planning, public needs, and long-term fiscal gains. Robert Moses made the highway system what it is, and in the end he regretted nearly all of it. With all the money we've wasted on it, high-speed could have been in the entire country by now. We are behind the entire developed world when it comes to efficient transportation. It's time to get on board (oh, I did it again!).

  • Warty||

    You are absolutely insufferable. Stick around.

  • Gus||

  • fish||

    In the mean time, every American will have to continue spending $20-60,000 on a car (or two) so they can sit in a cluster commute on the highway for hours. Old people will continue to have to stay in their depressing retirement homes because they can't drive, and kids will still require that their parents take them *everywhere*. I know this place is called "Reason" (and I often enjoy your "nanny-of-the-month"), but you need a reasonable lesson in urban planning, public needs, and long-term fiscal gains. Robert Moses made the highway system what it is, and in the end he regretted nearly all of it. With all the money we've wasted on it, high-speed could have been in the entire country by now. We are behind the entire developed world when it comes to efficient transportation. It's time to get on board (oh, I did it again!).

    How does the gov blowing billions help any of this again?

  • ||

  • db||

    I know a guy who repurposes used jet engines for use as large snowblowers for railroads and other applications that need large amounts of snow removed very rapidly. The shit he can do with these engines is awesome.

  • sevo||

    Corey|2.23.11 @ 4:20PM|#
    "Anyone who rails (lol) against spending on high-speed trains has clearly never been to Europe..."

    Bullshit.
    (lol)

  • sevo||

    "We are behind the entire developed world when it comes to efficient transportation. It's time to get on board (oh, I did it again!)."

    No, actually, we're *ahead*, since we're not wasting money on obsolete tech.

  • Corey||

    I don't see your car getting a consistent 120mph on the highway. And I don't see you making any valid points, either.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Since high speed rail is only an intercity thang, it is of little relevance to commuting or driving.

    Yes, Robert Moses was a piece of shit planner, pushing centrally planned subsidized infrastructure that is not fiscally sustainable. What makes you think adding yet another centrally planned, subsidized transportation system will undo the problems that planners already caused?

  • Corey||

    If high speed rail is only an intercity thing, how did I get across Spain in two hours?

    None of you even bothered making legitimate points except snow photo. And that only happened because I forgot the word "as". As db showed, cleanup is not that hard for snow with the right equipment. Snow is practically non-existent where I live, anyway - nothing to stop trains but tornadoes. All nit-picking aside, trains have far less weather problems than a car, plane, or bus. They are nearly always on time. They have more frequency. They have easier maintenance. I could go on about the benefits!

    You're all just old-man libertarians, too stubborn to see a good idea because it has a price tag...

  • Jen||

    If high speed rail is only an intercity thing, how did I get across Spain in two hours?

    inter - between
    intra - within

    Reading comprehension fail.

    And that only happened because I forgot the word "as".

    Yes, of course. The problem wasn't that you made a lousy argument that was discredited. The problem was that you "forgot" a word that would have made your argument credible. Yeah, I buy that.

    And I don't see you making any valid points, either.

    Nor have you.

  • Corey||

    You caught me, I made another reading mistake in between my two jobs.

    Even though you're totally bitchy about it, at least you said something valid in response unlike all these other guys. Still, I'd like to see you respond to thinks besides semantic reading and grammar... perhaps you could actually discuss the many reasons I presented on why trains would help instead of attempting to demean me. Just a thought.

  • Corey||

    Before you get your panties in a bunch... "things"**

  • Jen||

    When you base your "arguments" on nothing but ad hominem attacks (such as "You're all just old-man libertarians, too stubborn to see a good idea because it has a price tag") you open yourself up to, in fact ask for, exactly what you got.

    And it sounds like you've got your panties in much more of a wad than I do. Why do you give a shit what I think anyway? If you're really that thin-skinned, you probably put your ideas out there in the commentariat.

  • Jen||

    *probably shouldn't*

  • Corey||

    I didn't base my argument on ad hominem attacks. Please read my multiple other responses, or re-read the one you responded to. Here are four I pulled out of the one you read:

    -Less weather issues
    -Low maintenance
    -Higher frequency
    -More punctual

    Or, keep avoiding the real topic here.

  • Jen||

    You're all just old-man libertarians, too stubborn to see a good idea because it has a price tag...

    That is classic ad hominem.

  • Corey||

    And it is clearly not my "argument", so I fail to see why you keep bringing it up and avoiding any fruitful discussion.

  • Jen||

    The point is that any "discussion" with someone who starts things off in the manner that you do isn't going to be "fruitful" at all. You clearly have an axe to grind over rail transit for whatever reason and you came here to bitch about it.

  • Jen||

    Oh, and it was clearly part of your post, so yes, it was clearly part of your argument. You can't make an argument for something, throw in a juvenile ad hom attack as a casual aside, and then later claim that said ad hom attack "wasn't part of [your] argument."

  • Corey||

    *yawn*
    You have no points to make, I see.

  • Jen||

    Once again, nor do you. Stay in school.

  • Corey||

    I'm not the one who refuses to read, something every school child is taught by age four or five. If you did, you'd see a plethora of points to respond to in my multiple posts. You choose not to because you don't have anything to say. In fact, you never did, and simply wanted to attack whatever you could about me for the sake of it. I have decided you are a lovely internet troll for that reason and I have been a fool to eventually expect anything worthwhile coming from your comments. Goodbye!

  • Corey||

    You're not very bright, are you? Numerous people have responded to your adolescent comments with very valid points, which you childishly decided were "not valid" based on ambiguous criteria (in fact, you never came up with any valid rebuttal to someone else's perfectly valid point that transportation between cities contributes nothing toward commuting; you merely obfuscated the issue by confusing inter- with intra-).

    It is quite obvious that you came here to troll, and if all you're here to do is make juvenile arguments and pick and choose what you deem is a valid argument, you are not worth the time to have a debate with. That's why I have chosen not to debate with you. I argue the actual points with grown-ups only, and you are not a grown-up. So like I said, stay in school.

  • Jen (the actual poster)||

    You're not very bright, are you? Numerous people have responded to your adolescent comments with very valid points, which you childishly decided were "not valid" based on ambiguous criteria (in fact, you never came up with any valid rebuttal to someone else's perfectly valid point that transportation between cities contributes nothing toward commuting; you merely obfuscated the issue by confusing inter- with intra-).

    It is quite obvious that you came here to troll, and if all you're here to do is make juvenile arguments and pick and choose what you deem is a valid argument, you are not worth the time to have a debate with. That's why I have chosen not to debate with you. I argue the actual points with grown-ups only, and you are not a grown-up. So like I said, stay in school.

  • ||

    You know who else moved a lot of people on trains...

  • Corey||

    You know who else moved a lot of people on planes into buildings...

    moot point, try again

  • ||

    Anyone who rails (lol) against spending on high-speed trains has clearly never been to Europe and seen how easy, punctual (no traffic, just imagine), reliable, not susceptible to weather problems, and accessible they are to EVERYONE.

    And I'm sure the entire half a dozen people who would actually ride it in any given year would just think it was just super-awesome and stuff. But, that isn't a sound basis for spending $500 billion (upfront, and that's ignoring all of the ongoing losses that will need to be subsidized) on a really nice choo-choo train.

  • Corey||

    Trains in the United States BLOW. That's why no one rides them here. They are never done right because our planners are retarded. That's because they build them where it's "convenient"; in other words, they build on pre-existing rails and in the cheapest way possible, making them slow and not worth the effort. Lines are built in less dense areas for some moronic reason. In reality, they should be used as transit between major cities and as relief for congested areas within the city. No one used the interstates at first, either. Now look at them, they give people hemorrhoids every day during one-hour commutes.

    The trains I took in Europe were full, as in they SOLD OUT regularly if you didn't buy in advance. I'm sure you all take issue with the fact that they aren't profitable, but in my eyes, who cares? It's purpose is to give more people access to travel, and make the act of traveling itself an easier process. God forbid one aspect of your life weren't ruled by whether or not it's profitable!

  • ||

    I've been to Europe and rode both metro and high speed trains in several countries. they are for the most part efficent. But what you failed to mention is that operational costs are subsidized. In Germany its a 3 to one ratio for ticket cost. 1 eruo from the passenger 2 from the taxpayers. Sorry I don't want to pay for some urban douchbag's trip

  • Corey||

    I did mention it. I didn't much feel like copy and pasting one consolidated argument under every response. Read my other responses.

    And at least you're honest about not wanting to help other people out.

  • Paul||

    20k on a car??? If they're spending that much on a car they can coordinate themselves and buy their own damn train. Europe has 5 times the population density of the USA. Am I now supposed to move to the train so I can see how wonderful it is? Why should I drive an hour and a half from Baton Rouge to get to a high speed train in a smaller city, aka New Orleans? Sure, it would be more likely to get destroyed by a hurricane there, but you know it is a great place to go on vacation. I mean heck, if the government wanted me to buy me my own private jet to fly me around, I'd think, WOW! That's great! Don't you want the government to buy me a million dollar private jet? I'd be happy to even clear up traffic some. I could even fly to cool touristy spots with guests (citizens)... But hey, it might work out for New York and parts of California, so let's make the entirety of the US suffer the cost of something that should be paid for locally. How about this? Pay back the government debt. With all the savings from interest, a liberal government could actually provide *more* services. Or we could all enjoy a healthy tax break...

  • MrGuy||

    He looks like a porker.

  • Christopher Skyi||

    What? Another 500 billion down the drain/on the national credit card? You know, at this point, "It just doesn't matter:"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9mf3Bypyk8

  • ||

    corey,
    getting across spain is great, oh, wait, why is it great again?

    the us and europe are different places. europe has a much higher average population density, for example. places with less density are a disaster for public transportation.
    every single modern rail project in the us has been a boondoggle. it is like pro sports arenas...they always lose tons more money than they said they would, and demand more money because people don't understand how to evaluate the concept of "sunk cost".
    i have taken the train quite a bit, mostly in high school. it was great because i almost never had to sit next to another person. often, the nearest person was 5-6 rows away. and my ticket was subsidized by all the nice taxpayers so that the train would run all day even if only 10 people were on a particular train.
    and lastly corey, you should know that those here are against trains with public money, not trains in general. that is a very crucial distinction.
    just cuz something might be good, doesn't mean that govt should be doing it.

  • Corey||

    Finally, someone who is willing to discuss and not just be an asshole (except for that first quip)! Thank you.

    You make a valid point with density (which I was already aware of, but it hasn't been discussed). Trains would best be implemented in the U.S. between major corridors only rather than connecting all major cities. There's already been research done on this. Because of how spaced the U.S. is, trains can't be THE priority transportation when you're talking about cross-country travel. However, they would work wonders in alleviating corridors like the East coast or between Dallas and Austin. As far as trains go for inner city, we definitely have the density for it, but it requires smart planning. We haven't seen any smart planning, so people like the lovely Bill up there automatically assume out of ignorance that all trains would have the same ridership. He's looking at failed planning, not good planning.

    You're right; most projects like this are nearly always under-budgeted. I know it's "socialist" or whatever, but we could learn a lot from how Europe has dealt with their train system, and how they've paid for it (combo of subsidies with ticket prices). They've clearly had more practice, and our government is clearly full of morons who don't know how to budget or be efficient at... well, anything. Their trains COMPETE with their planes, keeping prices low. You guys love competition, right?

    I believe I've already covered the "failed train" syndrome where you assume that all trains must be wasteful because the line you rode was.

    I generally agree that when the private sector can do something, it should. However, we are in a day and age where travel can no longer, nor should it be, for the privileged alone to afford. To get anywhere outside a ten-mile radius requires an investment of at LEAST $10,000 into the shittiest car possible. Many people can't afford that, and therefore their ability to find a job within walking or biking distance is minimized. I experienced this myself, biking ten miles to and from my job. It's not easy. What I'm saying is that we should be able to provide access to travel for our citizens, because it is something that will give them the opportunity to provide for themselves. Travel is not profitable; you can look at the airlines and see how much they've struggled to stay afloat. Not many businesses would want to invest in trains because it's simply not profitable. I believe the government's role is to protect rights and fill in the holes where the private market can't reach. This is one of those instances. It's a tough situation, but that's how it is.

    People have two choices.
    1) think selfishly of their own needs and say, "trains aren't needed because I have a car"
    or
    2) think about the progression of society as a whole and how individuals would benefit from large-scale changes, at the possible, tiny expense of your individual wealth.

    Maybe you disagree and this is probably a matter of different values between us, but I'd rather pay a little more for a better-off society and have a little less money to waste on plastic crap. That is, as long as my money is being spent well. We've become accustomed to the government spending our tax dollars poorly, so I understand why it's an upsetting reality. However, if they bothered to consolidate and hire experts rather than friends, things might be a little better. All in all, I'm FOR TRAINS, but not necessarily for the aforementioned "porker" building a train. I don't want trains to be discounted because of people who made stupid planning decisions. Make sense?

  • puma pas cher||

    let it go

  • Converse magasin ||

    nice

  • nike running shoes||

    is good

  • دليل||

    asfaszxv

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement