***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Trump Administration to Cancel $929 Million in California High-Speed Rail Funding


Gov. Gavin Newsom called the Trump administration's vow to cancel $929 million in federal high-speed rail funding an attempt at political payback. (Los Angeles Times)

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-high-speed-rail-20190219-story.html

The fate of California’s high-speed rail project was cast into further doubt Tuesday when the federal government announced plans to cancel $929 million in grant funds, a move U.S. officials linked to violations of the grant agreement but some view as political payback.

The action marks an escalation in the battle between President Trump and the state of California since Gov. Gavin Newsom said last week that the project lacked a path to complete a statewide system and vowed to scale back the $77-billion mega-project.

The Transportation Department also said it was “actively exploring every legal option” to get back an additional $2.5-billion grant that is being used to finance the construction of 119 miles of rail line in the Central Valley.

The two federal grants represent about one-fourth of all the funding for the project to date — money critical to completing the Central Valley portion and finishing environmental reviews for other segments between San Francisco and Los Angeles. If the funds are lost or tied up in a long legal battle, the state would probably have to either make up the money elsewhere or further curtail the project.

Newsom on Tuesday vowed to block the move, arguing that it was political payback by the Trump administration.

“It’s no coincidence that the Administration’s threat comes 24 hours after California led 16 states in challenging the President’s farcical ‘national emergency,’” Newsom said in a statement, referring to Trump’s emergency declaration to secure funding for his wall on the Mexican border. “The President even tied the two issues together in a tweet this morning. This is clear political retribution by President Trump, and we won’t sit idly by. This is California’s money, and we are going to fight for it.”

Earlier in the day, Trump had declared on Twitter, “The failed Fast Train project in California, where the cost overruns are becoming world record setting, is hundreds of times more expensive than the desperately needed Wall!”

Ronald Batory, chief of the Federal Railroad Administration, the transportation agency that made the grants in 2009 and 2010, laid out a lengthy legal argument Tuesday for why the state was out of compliance with the grant agreement. Batory said in a three-page letter to California High-Speed Rail Authority Chief Executive Brian Kelly that the state “has materially failed to comply with the terms of the agreement and has failed to make reasonable progress on the project.”

Batory alleged that the state had failed to spend required matching funds, falling short by $100 million as of December. He argued that it will fail to complete the Central Valley construction by a 2022 deadline required by the grant. Batory also said the state has not submitted required financial information — such as reports on what has been delivered to date — that would allow federal regulators to oversee the grants. It also has failed to take corrective actions after regulators raised concerns in 2017 and 2018.

The letter also cited Newsom’s State of the State speech last week that outlined a plan to build a limited operating segment between Merced and Bakersfield as a “significant retreat from the state’s initial vision and commitment.”

The rail authority said Tuesday afternoon that it would respond in detail to those allegations in coming days.

Newsom said in his speech that the project needed to be rethought and that the initial run would be within the Central Valley, not the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles route voters approved a decade ago.

“But let’s be real,” Newsom said in the speech to lawmakers. “The current project, as planned, would cost too much and respectfully take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency.… Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were. However, we do have the capacity to complete a high-speed rail link between Merced and Bakersfield.”

In the hours that followed Newsom’s speech, Trump demanded that California return $3.5 billion in federal funds, and headlines proclaimed the Democratic governor was abandoning the ambitious project championed by his predecessors — a story line that Newsom denied and one that his team has scrambled to correct.

Although Newsom said the full project will eventually be completed, his tough remarks clearly sent a signal about his tepid support for the project and triggered some managers in the project office to consider leaving.

Whether the Trump administration can actually cancel the $929-million grant, which in legal terms is called “de-obligating” the funds, remains unclear. The possibility of ordering a refund of the $2.5-billion grant that is already being spent is even a bigger legal uncertainty.

Former congressman Jeff Denham, a Central Valley Republican who chaired the House rail subcommittee and is an outspoken critic of the project, spent years with his staff trying to figure out whether it would be possible to de-obligate the funding and ultimately decided it could not be done by congressional act.

The federal action to terminate the grant wades into uncharted legal territory.

“I can’t recall of any precedent,” said Art Bauer, a longtime state Senate Transportation Committee staffer who was deeply involved in the early planning on the high-speed rail. “They never claw back money. They are saying you are not getting money we committed to you. They are setting up a big fight.”

But in this case, Bauer said, “the governor unwittingly gave the federal government a reason to back away from the project.”

Although the federal regulators alleged that the state violated the terms of the grant, Bauer said such performance is typical in federal funding for transportation. “Just look at any highway project. They are never done on schedule or on budget. They are often not done within the original scope.

“The supporters of the project are really going to go through the roof,” he added. “I imagine a good part of the congressional delegation will gang up on the Department of Transportation and the federal Railroad Administration. But there is no love lost.”

The Trump administration action is likely to add further fuel to critics, including those in California, who want the project stopped. Assemblyman Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) said Tuesday that the entire project should be scrapped and funds redirected to Central Valley projects that would benefit the state.

Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R-Fresno), a vocal critic of the project, said, “It doesn’t matter what the state says about not giving the money back,” he said. “The feds can, in fact, claw that money back.”
 
Either way, as expected Trump has already shot himself in the foot when it comes to his justification and legal defense for the "emergency" declaration.
Within days after the declaration, Trump said on camera that he "didn't need to" declare a national emergency but did so because he'd "rather do it much faster."
If he "didn't need to" declare an emergency, then obviously there isn't such an emergency that warrants the declaration. On top of that he admitted he did it to bypass Congress and speed up his demand for the construction of a border wall.
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...t-need-to-declare-emergency-but-wanted-faster
Trump says he 'didn't need to' declare emergency but wanted 'faster' action
President Trump said on Friday that he "didn't need to" declare a national emergency but did it to speed up construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

"I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster," Trump said during a press conference at the Rose Garden in the White House.
 


I'm real skeptical about this
francis.png
 
Sounds very odd that Mueller would even be near to completing his work, supposedly. Stone's case is still fresh and ongoing, Rick Gates' sentencing hasn't even been scheduled yet, Sam Patten has only very recently gotten his sentencing date (April 12), ...
Just last month in mid-January, Mueller ordered another delay in Gates' sentencing and cited his ongoing cooperation in several ongoing investigations. They have only just started disclosing in court filings that Konstantin Kilimnik and Manafort are central to the core matters the Special Counsel is tasked with investigating. Cohen's cooperation is still pretty recent too and there were quite a few threads in Mueller's filing for Cohen's sentencing that suggested further investigation.

It appears that Rick Gates had his hand in just about everything and even as of last month he still had more cooperation to do in multiple ongoing investigations. So much so that his sentencing still hasn't been set despite pleading guilty in early 2018 and starting to cooperate shortly after.
 
Last edited:
“Why have laws when people break them?”

Isn’t this your defense when we say ban guns? :lol:

...

Columbine shooters had bombs... Availability doesn't seem to be the issue. That is the entire point. People dead set on causing mass harm find a way to do it. Gun laws, just like weed and liquor laws, aren't going to stop anyone set on obtaining the weapons from getting them. As long as manufacturers are making the weapons they will be able to end up in the wrong hands, sadly. These criminals could careless about the law.

oh
 

Context matters. Are you applying the gun logic to the wall, as we were discussing? Because it appears that many say a wall is pointless because other people can tunnel under them or climb over them. The going theme, as I hear it, is that drug dealers won't be stopped by a wall. The same logic works as it relates to gun control. So which is it? Do both matter or do neither?
 
Context matters. Are you applying the gun logic to the wall, as we were discussing? Because it appears that many say a wall is pointless because other people can tunnel under them or climb over them. The going theme, as I hear it, is that drug dealers won't be stopped by a wall. The same logic works as it relates to gun control. So which is it? Do both matter or do neither?

You said you didn't apply the "criminals are going to break the law anyway" logic to the gun control discussion

I was just pointing out your blatant lie

Have a blessed day
 
It's amazing how this POS tells his intel staff he doesn't believe their info bcs putin said otherwise & he's trying to sell the saudis nuclear tech that's despite clear cut laws that prevent such a transaction. It's grimey how this regime is trying to fast track the sale to...
 
Context matters. Are you applying the gun logic to the wall, as we were discussing? Because it appears that many say a wall is pointless because other people can tunnel under them or climb over them. The going theme, as I hear it, is that drug dealers won't be stopped by a wall. The same logic works as it relates to gun control. So which is it? Do both matter or do neither?
I think we can all agree that we need to focus on changing people's hearts and minds.
 
Regardless of what side you're on, can we agree on on a few things:

* People on the other side of the border generally come here for a better life, to escape poverty, danger and chase opportunity.
* A few hundred years ago, the people who founded the United States as we know it came for the same exact things.

So where is the arbitrary timeline we are setting? Who sets this timeline of when people are allowed in? Genuinely interested in the thinking behind those who are for the wall. Border security is important, but if that's your primary concern, why aren't you for a wall on the borders of Canada? If illegal immigration is the actual issue, then that's one thing and lets remain consistent in our treatment of all illegals. If it's something else, just be upfront about it.
 
You said you didn't apply the "criminals are going to break the law anyway" logic to the gun control discussion

I was just pointing out your blatant lie

Have a blessed day

That isn't the logic. The discussion, as I recall it, was that changing the heart and minds is the way to keep people from wanting to cause harm to other people. Laws matter. But in that discussion, the recommended solutions would not have prevented the outcome.

Thank you for the blessing.
 
Back
Top Bottom