The Legislative Analyst’s Office clearly hoped that their attack on the California high speed rail project would prove decisive and lead the legislature to follow the disreputable path taken by Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and New Jersey in rejecting federal passenger rail funds.

That’s not going to happen. Instead, a backlash is growing against the LAO’s report. In particular, criticism is mounting of the LAO’s shocking and unusual decision to intervene in a policy debate, especially one that voters have already settled.

Here’s a sampling of the reaction against the LAO (and there’s more on the way, including our own op-eds):

Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani blasted the LAO’s lack of expertise and their desire to handicap the project:

Last year, I asked the Legislative Analyst Office whether they had consulted with anyone who has had experience in building a high-speed train system. The answer to this question was no.

This year’s report fails to provide us with any detail about the extensive process the Federal Rail Administration already went through to arrive at this decision. If the LAO had talked to the FRA, they’d know that the FRA has sought peer review from countries that have built profitable systems, and that those reviews have been considered all along during California’s planning process.

It’s a very serious problem that the LAO is not only producing studies on the HSR project without having done any of this crucial background work, but that they are calling for the project to be gutted as well. The legislature and, ultimately, the people of California rely on the LAO to provide informed and impartial analysis. We knew their analysis was quite partial – against the project. We now know it was uninformed as well.

Galgiani continues:

So as far as I am concerned, the LAO report is just an opinion, issued without a full knowledge and understanding of what it takes to plan and build a high-speed train system and the level of information that can reasonably be expected at this early stage of our project.

We should be asking these global builders of profitable systems whether they are confident that California is on the right track for building high-speed rail in a feasible way, and the answer will be yes.

That’s a reasonable thing to ask, isn’t it? After all, if the companies that have the most experience in HSR think our project is on the right track, shouldn’t that matter more than a bunch of uninformed project skeptics who have never taken the time to understand how HSR works? After all, Siemens USA and many others have shown their support for the project.

Galgiani concludes:

The LAO report also suggests that the Legislature not approve bond funds or stimulus money for consultants on the project.

My response to this suggestion: There will always be some who will continue to slam the California High-Speed Rail Authority in the knees with a baseball bat and then ask them why they can’t run any faster.

Can’t put it any better than that.

At Fox and Hounds Daily, a conservative publication, John Wildermuth rises to the project’s defense. Wildermuth, who had been a reporter on the California politics beat for the San Francisco Chronicle for many years, saw immediately what the LAO was up to:

You want to kill a project like high-speed rail? Just let the Green Eyeshade Brigade start working on it.

On Tuesday, Mac Taylor and his Legislative Analyst’s Office put out a report that treated the 15-year-old effort to tie the state together with a 200-plus mph train as something nasty that needed to be wiped off his shoe.

Ouch. Wildermuth goes on to list some of the problems with the LAO’s report, including its “passing mention” of the project’s benefits, and defends the concept and the plan, reminding readers that voters backed the project for good reasons:

I don’t think so. Regular Californians dream bigger than the accountants, analysts, politicians and, yes, even pundits. In the past, the state’s leaders have put their mark on California with highways, dams, roads, water systems, bridges, universities and other gee-whiz projects that were a risk when they were first conceived.

But Californians have always been risk takers and people more interested in hearing how something new can get done than in being told why it’s impossible.

Japan, France and other countries have shown high-speed rail isn’t impossible. It shouldn’t be impossible in California, either.

People like Wildermuth are the ones that the LAO and other HSR opponents need to flip over to their side. But that’s not happening. Wildermuth saw right through the LAO’s game, and wasn’t moved by it at all.

Fresno mayor Ashley Swearengin took issue with the report as well:

“I think, with anything, there are a couple of valid points, but there are some conclusions in this report that are absolutely unfounded,” Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin said.

The mayor said the report’s conclusions — which call for significant legislative intervention — feel political in nature.

Among her biggest concerns are taking the decision on which segment to build first from the state’s High-Speed Rail Authority and giving it to the state Legislature.

“Can you imagine our state Legislature being responsible for that kind of decision when they can’t even make run-of-the-mill decisions like balancing the budget?” Swearengin asked. “It would entirely be political, and would not be based on the effectiveness of the trains or the overall project.”

Ultimately, she said, it would end up being a parochial project limited to the Los Angeles region and the Bay Area.

Yep. That’s exactly what Senators Alan Lowenthal and Joe Simitian seem to want. Gut the project, take the money for their pet commuter rail projects, and screw the overall project goal of connecting SF to LA. Mayor Swearengin’s response is strong and solid, showing that Fresno won’t go down without a fight.

She was joined by the Fresno Bee, which agreed with Mayor Swearengin that the project should not become a political football as the LAO seems to want:

But the LAO report appeared to be more of a thinly veiled excuse to kill the high-speed rail project than sincere recommendations to improve the 800-mile system. We expected much more out of the LAO’s office than a political document to undermine the project….

High-speed rail must pencil out and its business plan must be viable. Those questions rightly need to be asked, and the High Speed Rail Authority must be able to answer them and justify the project. But turning this project into a political fight does not serve the transportation needs of Californians.

I think that’s a reasonable conclusion. I would be the first in line to welcome an LAO report that was genuinely interested in helping the project succeed by pointing out things it could improve, and suggesting constructive ways it could do so. Instead the LAO took the opportunity to attack the entire project itself, even though voters already said they wanted it. When major newspapers are calling out the LAO for making a “political” intervention, you know the LAO is in trouble.

CALPIRG, which has done a lot of work on behalf of the project over the years, added its own statement attacking the LAO report:

If we want to resign ourselves to a California without high-speed rail, that requires us to depend on congested freeways to get around and that requires even more expensive freeway and airport construction to meet growing transportation needs, then the legislature should follow the advice of the Legislative Analyst’s Office and refuse to fund high-speed rail planning this year.

But if we are going to build this high-speed train between Los Angeles and San Francisco, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work in the Central Valley, not delay construction further…

We recommend that the legislature and governor focus on that oversight, rather than reexamining the decision that has already been made to start construction in the Central Valley. Starting construction elsewhere only makes sense if we abandon the vision of connecting high-speed rail between northern and southern California.

CALPIRG points out what the LAO merely glanced at: high speed rail is about California’s future, and about avoiding the cost of doing nothing.

Over at the Transport Politic, Yonah Freemark mounts a strong defense of the decision to start construction in the Central Valley, which the LAO ignorantly criticized:

The stretch through the Central Valley – along which trains will travel at 220 mph – is the crucial investment for a fast train system in the state. By allowing trains to accelerate to extremely fast speeds not possible within metropolitan areas, the system can produce true time savings over automobile and air alternatives.* Without the Central Valley link, the network would simply be a series of improved commuter lines.

Freemark gets at the heart of the issue, which the LAO avoided in their zeal to undermine the voter-approved project: the federal funding system for HSR is deeply flawed. He argues, correctly, that the federal government ought to be using a full-funding grant agreement approach. Congress has not given the executive branch that authority, which has created the current uncertainty around federal funding. That absolutely has to be addressed, and HSR supporters are acutely aware of that. But Freemark goes on to point out that even in the absence of such a process, the LAO is wrong to call for the project to be ended:

The LAO report effectively suggests that the project be put on hold pending the answers to these questions. If California cannot be sure that it can fund the entire system, the logic goes, perhaps it should not be building the central stretch. But abandoning the work the state has done so far, or just delaying the program in hope of more definite policies in the years ahead, is a recipe for giving up on the project altogether. Today, California has momentum on its project – a supportive governor and billions of dollars in the bank amassed just over the past two years – so in the face of confusion in Washington, it at least has a chance to move forward. If the state relaxed its grip now, would it be able to keep going?

Finally, Californians For High Speed Rail had its own critical response to the LAO report (which I helped write):

“Rather than trying to help the project, the LAO recommendations would jeopardize almost $4 billion in Federal funding,” said Daniel Krause, Executive Director of CA4HSR. “Asking the Federal government to change where construction begins at this late juncture, when U.S. Department of Transportation has clearly stated their intent that funds go to the Central Valley, is just not realistic. Most major transportation projects, including the Interstate system and I-5 here in California, started construction in less challenging areas like the Central Valley.”…

Brian Stanke, Chairman of CA4HSR added, “We have serious questions about the LAO’s judgment on this matter. The real risk to the economy is to slow down the high-speed project and risk almost $4 billion in Federal funding. We are appalled that the LAO would recommend any actions that would threaten a project that will provide thousands of jobs at a time when jobs are desperately needed in California.”

The LAO appears to have hoped that its biased and uninformed attack would cause a collapse in support for the HSR project. It’s done the opposite. Not only are supporters rallying to the project’s defense, but others in the media who might be swayed by the LAO report are seeing right through it and rejecting its biased conclusions.

Ultimately, the LAO itself may be the real loser here. It spent decades building up a a reputation for credible, impartial analysis. Their attacks on the HSR project, especially given how uninformed those attacks are, have begun to undermine that hard-earned reputation. The LAO is a good idea and under Elizabeth Hill and others provided an invaluable service. It’s a shame to see Mac Taylor throw that away in the pursuit of his own agenda.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office is out with another report that attacks the California high speed rail project. Rather than work to find the best way to ensure it gets built, the LAO appears to be throwing in their lot with the emerging anti-HSR strategy coming from Senators Alan Lowenthal and Joe Simitian. The report suggests that California delay the HSR project even at the risk of losing $4 billion in federal funds already awarded to the project. It suggests that the Central Valley not be the first segment constructed, and suggests that the project be placed under the authority of Caltrans – even though as the LAO admits, Caltrans has no experience with this kind of work.

The LAO makes some other recommendations too, of varying degrees of value, but the headline suggestion – that HSR be essentially put on ice – is a slap in the face to California voters, who support this project and expect it to be built as quickly as possible.

The LAO has attacked the HSR project before – and with similarly disappointing results. In January 2010 they leveled a flawed criticism of the HSR project. The May 2011 report, curiously timed to be released just as the State Senate is taking up a bill to blow up the California High Speed Rail Authority board and replace it with a bunch of people skeptical of the project’s value.

The basic flaws of this LAO report are as follows:

1. It does not adequately acknowledge the risk of losing federal funding if the report’s recommendations are implemented. Loss of these funds will essentially kill the HSR project, necessitating massive freeway and airport expansions in the future, and suppressing needed job creation.

Fund Only Needed Administrative Tasks for Now. We recommend that the Legislature reject the administration’s 2011-12 budget request for $185 million in funding for consultants to perform project management, public outreach, and other work to develop the project, and only appropriate at this time the $7 million in funding requested for state administration of the project by HSRA.

Seek Flexibility on Use of Federal Funds. We propose that the Legislature direct HSRA to renegotiate the terms of the federal funding awarded to the state by the Federal Rail Administration (FRA). We believe the state must obtain relief from the current federal restrictions on the project if it is to be developed successfully, and therefore that the Legislature should proceed with the project only if this flexibility is obtained from the federal government.

The LAO’s headline recommendations – to essentially defund the CHSRA and reject federal funding – are the equivalent of what Republican Governors Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Rick Scott did to HSR funding in their states. Did anyone tell the LAO that voters approved high speed rail funding in November 2008? Or that they dealt a crushing defeat to anti-HSR Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman in November 2010? The LAO is calling for the state legislature to reverse the will of the voters. That’s highly inappropriate. The LAO’s job is to help the Legislature implement the project – not call for it to be undermined.

The federal government is highly unlikely to agree to such a request if California were insane enough to make it. The feds are already having a tough enough time fighting the Republicans in Congress over HSR funding. If California were to demand “flexibility” it would immediately be spun by the Republicans as further “proof” that HSR is a bad idea. The White House would either do as they did to Florida – demand that the project move ahead as originally planned or take back the money and give it to someone else. The LAO’s grasp of the politics of the issue are simply incompetent.

As to the question of the CHSRA funding, cutting it back to $7 million would totally cripple the project no matter what happens with the federal funding. The CHSRA, under new CEO Roelof van Ark, has been doing an increasingly effective job of conducting better planning and public outreach on the project. All that work would grind to a halt if the project were defunded, as the LAO proposes. It would be very difficult to start that work back up – and it would certainly be more costly. Federal stimulus deadlines would be jeopardized, and if the LAO things the feds can be flexible on that, they’re nuts.

The LAO’s fiscal recommendations are simply irresponsible.

2. The LAO report irresponsibly claims that the entire project could cost $67 billion. This is a figure extrapolated from outdated numbers and is not based on any sound analysis of project features, materials and construction costs, or land values for the entire HSR system. Further, their claim does not take into consideration the Authority’s recent approach of “value engineering,” including last week’s decision to reject a costly viaduct through Fresno.

NIMBYs have been running around claiming – without ANY evidence – that the project will actually cost $67 billion. They have no solid facts for this claim. They have not done an analysis of materials costs, construction costs, land values, the price of steel, the price of concrete, the possibility of inflation (or deflation), fuel costs, so on and so forth. The LAO has now embraced this claim, and like the NIMBYs, bases it in a deeply flawed assumption:

If the cost of building the entire Phase 1 system were to grow as much as the revised HSRA estimate for the 100-mile [Central Valley] segment discussed above, construction would cost about $67 billion. This extrapolation of costs, however, is based on the cost increase for a relatively straight-forward and uncomplicated segment of the proposed rail line. It is possible that some of the more urban segments could be even more significantly underestimated.

But the problem is that the estimate for the Central Valley segment is old. Just last week the CHSRA board voted to reject a costly viaduct through Fresno, saving hundreds of millions of dollars. The LAO’s report suggests the office is simply not aware of what the Authority is doing or planning. Instead it simply collected all the existing anti-HSR arguments, slapped their name on it, and is trying to use their reputation to give credibility to an attack on the project.

The LAO should know better than to engage in such uninformed speculation.

3. The LAO is engaging in deficit errorism, claiming that deficit spending does not create any lasting economic value and merely is a threat to the project.

State Would Incur Major Additional Debt Service Costs. The 2009 business plan assumes that $9 billion in state funding for the project will come from the sale of general obligation bonds approved by voters in Proposition 1A. The debt service payments on general obligation bonds are typically paid for from the state’s General Fund. We estimate that, should the state sell all of the $9 billion in voter-approved high-speed rail bonds, the state’s total principal and interest costs for repaying the debt would be $18 billion to $20 billion. This would require annual debt service payments of roughly $1 billion for the next two decades. Due to the dire condition of the state’s General Fund, adding such costs for debt service in the near future means that the Legislature would have to consider reducing costs for other state programs or increasing revenues to offset these costs.

This is a deeply flawed claim, because the LAO is not including here the stimulative effects of infrastructure spending. Nowhere do they address the tax revenues from the 160,000 jobs the project would create, jobs and revenues that the LAO believes should be put at risk by advocating for a delay of project implementation.

Nowhere do they examine the cost of delay to the residents and businesses of California by continued dependence on ever-more expensive gas and worsening highway and air congestion.

Nowhere do they address the costs of pollution and carbon emissions that would result from long delays to the project that the recommendations would cause.

The LAO ought to know, better than anyone in Sacramento, that if you’re going to assess the costs, you have to actually assess both sides of the equation – the spending side AND the revenues that the spending generates. I’m guessing nobody in the LAO office is familiar with the green dividend from high speed rail, which a US Conference of Mayors report from June 2010 indicated could be as much as $10 billion a year – $7.6 billion in new business sales and $3 billion a year in new wages. Both those things can be taxed, and that alone will get you close to, if not above, the debt service costs.

You won’t find that anywhere in the LAO report.

4. The LAO report suggests doing what Senator Alan Lowenthal has always wanted – gutting the HSR project into nothing more than disconnected commuter rail segments that do not serve the project’s primary purpose of moving travelers rapidly from SF to LA.

The first section of the project to be built will be the Central Valley, connecting Fresno and Bakersfield and extending out toward LA and SF. The federal government dictated this (and the LAO naively thinks that can be ignored) because the Central Valley has some of the highest unemployment in the state, and since the federal funds are stimulus funds, they should go where jobs are needed the most.

As with the Interstates, you have to start building somewhere – but the ultimate goal is a system that connects SF to LA. The Central Valley is where construction is the cheapest, so it makes sense to get started there. After all, the goal is to connect SF to LA, and the Central Valley is the spine of that project.

The LAO doesn’t seem to care about that. In what may be a sign of collaboration between the LAO and Senator Lowenthal’s office, a look at the segments they propose to fund instead shows that they have totally forsaken the goal of fast, European or Asian-style intercity bullet trains for merely upgrading commuter rail. The LAO ought to know that’s forbidden under Prop 1A. But they do it anyway:

Alternative Segments Could Provide More Benefit to the State

For several reasons discussed earlier, there is a significant risk to the state that the statewide high-speed rail system envisioned in Proposition 1A will never be fully completed. It is possible that only a segment or two of the system will ultimately be constructed. The High-Speed Rail Authority has chosen to begin construction of the system on a 123-mile segment from near Fresno to Bakersfield. If this is the only portion of the system built, the state would realize some service improvements for the San Joaquin intercity rail corridor, such as shorter trip times and better on-time service. This intercity rail service currently runs six trains daily in each direction. However, based on our analysis, other segments could provide greater benefit to the state’s overall transportation system even if the rest of the high-speed rail system were not completed. Below, we describe three segments that warrant consideration as alternatives to the Central Valley line.

   * Los Angeles-Anaheim. This highly travelled corridor includes commuter, freight, and intercity rail traffic, which could benefit greatly from corridor improvements along the alignment shared with the proposed high-speed rail system. Fifty passenger trains run daily through this corridor, at times sharing tracks with roughly 75 freight trains. In addition, grade separations that could be built as part of a high-speed rail project would improve the flow of auto traffic along the corridor because vehicles would no longer have to stop and wait for passing rail. Finally, to the extent improved passenger rail service in this corridor led to increased ridership, it could reduce pressure on other transportation modes and decrease the need for infrastructure projects that expand the capacity of the roads.

   * San Francisco-San Jose. Similar to Los Angeles-Anaheim, capital projects in this heavily congested corridor could improve both rail and auto traffic. This segment currently hosts 86 commuter trains daily, and freight trains use it at night.

   * San Jose-Merced. The state provides intercity rail service from Sacramento to Merced (and on to Bakersfield), and a separate rail service between Sacramento and San Jose. If the state chose the segment between San Jose and Merced for a high-speed rail project, the state would essentially “close the loop” and enable a significant increase in passenger rail mobility between the Central Valley and the Bay Area. This benefit from high-speed rail construction would result even if high-speed trains ultimately were never operated on the system. A recent report prepared by a Bay Area transportation commission projects that the number of commuters traveling daily from the Central Valley to the Bay Area will double by 2030, adding 60,000 commuters a day.

This approach would negate the overall objective of the project, the one that voters said they wanted: providing fast passenger rail service connecting downtown SF to downtown LA. The LAO basically is saying that objective doesn’t matter (have they looked at gas prices lately?!) and that if all we get is some slightly improved commuter rail, it’s fine.

Well, it isn’t. That is not what the voters approved.

The LAO report gives the appearance of dictating state policy rather than providing objective advice and reliable numbers to the legislature. Under the new Legislative Analyst, Mac Taylor, the LAO has been doing a lot more of that lately, and it’s starting to become a very serious problem. The LAO cannot provide objectivity and useful analysis if it is seen as having a position or a side in policy debates.

5. The LAO calls for placing the CHSRA under Caltrans – even though it admits Caltrans has no project experience.

This one pretty much speaks for itself:

While we believe there are merits to shifting the project to Caltrans, there are reasons to be concerned about such a shift. For instance, transportation experts within and outside state government have expressed concerns about Caltrans’ ability to effectively implement this project, citing the department’s longstanding focus on highways and lack of expertise in working with private partners on PPPs. In addition, our office has in recent years found some significant management problems in Caltrans. Finally, some experts suggest that the project should be viewed not as a state project but as a PPP under which the state would cede a significant level of control to private partners.

This sections seems quite clearly intended to make the case for something like Lowenthal’s SB 517, which calls for the CHSRA board to be replaced by a group of people skeptical to the project. Caltrans wouldn’t necessarily be skeptical, but it won’t provide effective governance or leadership. Lowenthal’s bill appears designed to ensure the project does not have effective governance, so that it becomes easier for him to get his hands on the Prop 1A money and simply redirect it elsewhere.

The LAO report mentions some specific ways in which Caltrans expertise could be useful to the project. Those can and should be explored, but as a partnership. There’s nothing stopping the CHSRA from contracting Caltrans for those service. Of course, if the project is defunded as the LAO wants, that can’t happen.

6. The LAO report does not really take HSR seriously as a proposal. As we saw in the January 2010 report, the LAO apparently does not have anyone with any knowledge of global HSR projects, and worse, does not appear to have even done any research at all on those projects. They describe the benefits of HSR, but to the LAO these benefits are merely “theoretical”:

The proposed high-speed rail system could have some positive fiscal benefits. For example, HSRA estimates that this project would alleviate the need to build 3,000 new lane-miles of freeway, and 5 airport runways and 90 new departure gates-at a cost of nearly $100 billion-that would otherwise be necessary to accommodate intrastate travel by 2030. This is because the state’s population is projected to grow steadily for decades and significant investment in transportation infrastructure is expected to be needed to accommodate travelers between Northern and Southern California. In theory, if those travelers choose the high-speed rail system instead of other modes, the project could reduce the state’s overall infrastructure costs.

In addition, beginning construction of the project could have some positive effects on the state’s economy. For example, the infusion of federal funds and potentially other private funds from outside the state, such as international partners who might invest in the project, would benefit the overall economy at least in the short run. Some work, such as the construction of rail cars, could be performed by California firms….

Finally, some have argued that investing in high-speed rail infrastructure instead of other modes of transportation could lead to improved environmental outcomes, such as better air quality. This is because the proposed system will be electrically powered and not require fossil fuels the way most automobiles and aircraft currently do. However, other studies have suggested that the project may not realize such improved environmental outcomes, especially if levels of ridership were low to moderate.

It’s really sad to see the LAO using weasel words here. They have no clue that HSR ridership around the world is very high, and apparently have no clue that private sector interest in the project is high.

The LAO report should not be taken seriously as a basis for policy discussions by the state legislature. All HSR supporters should rally against it and its findings. The LAO has overstepped its bounds here, trying to set policy for the state instead of dispassionately providing comprehensive analysis. The HSR project may need some reforms, but the LAO is proposing to gut it entirely. The legislature and the governor should reject it outright.

It’s a headline sure to stir the hearts of progressives, education activists, and Californians who are just plain sick and tired of watching their public schools driven to collapse by the Republicans: the California Teachers Association is going to mount a “Wisconsin-style occupation” of the state capitol in Sacramento.

Only problem: it won’t accomplish a thing.

Here’s what The Nation has to say about it:

Following the Wisconsin tradition of meaningful protest, the California Teachers Association is planning a weeklong “State of Emergency” campaign designed to focus on budget cuts in schools and the need to avoid further reductions to spending.

CTA President David Sanchez told delegates to the state Democratic Party convention last weekend that protesters will stage “daily sit-ins” inside the Capitol.

State of Emergency hopes to convince legislators to pass a state budget with tax extensions estimated to generate some $12 billion for the state and local governments, and also to change the tax structure in order to support stable funding for public education.

The problem here is that this is going to be a short-term occupation, with a specific end date that will come whether or not anything is achieved. That’s not what happened in Wisconsin, where the Capitol was occupied for as long as it took – and once the bill was passed, the occupation only ended so that recall signatures could be gathered. What CTA is planning is more like a “demonstration” and while it will be disruptive to those working in the Capitol, it will almost certainly fail to produce anything, just as their previous efforts have failed.

Activists need to learn that you have to start shutting things down and committing to it for as long as it takes – any protest that has a pre-scheduled end will simply be endured and then forgotten.

Another reason I’m not sure this will achieve much is that the issue is with Republicans who are refusing to vote to put new taxes on the ballot. Democrats will happily do it, but it requires a 2/3 vote, and as we know, Dems are short in both houses. So I’m not entirely sure what the theory of change is here for CTA. At least they’re doing something – they’ve spent the last 5 years sitting on their ass while K-12 has been hammered by cuts – but this doesn’t seem like it’s going to go very far.

Better to devote their efforts at organizing in a few key GOP districts. Why not organize sit-ins at their offices in the districts? Stay there until the GOP members vote to put taxes on the ballot – and start circulating recall petitions if they don’t. Whatever the specific form of action, organizing in the districts themselves needs to be a top priority.

SD-12 and SD-15 (Cannella and Blakeslee) are two obvious targets, as is SD-19 (Strickland). There are a few ADs that might be picked off too, maybe AD-33, maybe AD-37, perhaps still others. CTA is getting a lot of pushback from their members in the school districts who are finally getting fed up with CTA’s inability to translate their money and their political pull into anything resembling action to save K-12 education. We’ll see if this is the start of something better, or more wasteful fail.

Assemblymember Diane Harkey is a Republican from southern Orange County, and like most Republicans from that part of the county, is a total wingnut. In 2010 she proposed a bill to gut the high speed rail project by preventing the sale of the HSR bonds that California voters had approved in November 2008. The bill went nowhere.

Unlike the Central Valley Republican members of Congress, who flip-flopped on HSR once the Koch Brothers demanded it, Harkey has always opposed high speed rail. Harkey’s ideology appears to be a typical right-wing one of opposing government spending on anything but roads and oil. Peak oil and climate change are liberal lies in her mind, and of course, nobody rides trains in California as far as she is concerned – even though there are several popular stations in her own district.

Still, that didn’t prepare California for Harkey’s shocking and offensive comments today about the high speed rail project:

Harkey pointed to California’s high speed rail project as an example of unnecessary spending. She also objected to it being built through farmland.

“This is cultural genocide, and we can’t tolerate that,” she said.

Wow.

Cultural genocide.

Harkey is unhinged. The loss of some 3,000 acres of farmland – a pittance – is nothing remotely like “cultural genocide.” Only a small handful of farmers will be affected by the project, probably less than were affected by the construction of Interstate 5 in the 1960s. And many more will be protected by the project, since the train would save farmland by channeling future growth into the existing urban areas and cut down on pressure to convert farms to subdivisions.

Harkey’s comments do nothing to help the cause of a small group of Central Valley farmers agitating for a different route for the project. As I’ve said before, these farmers can’t stop the project, and would only undermine their own efforts if they tried. But it really doesn’t help for people like Harkey to make offensive and frankly crazy comments like these.

Kevin McCarthy is a Republican Congressman from the 22nd district, which includes Bakersfield, most of Kern County, and most of San Luis Obispo County (except for SLO itself). Kern County voted for Prop 1A in November 2008 – it was a close vote, with about 1600 votes separating yes and no, but it IS a clear sign than Kern County residents want high speed rail.

And it makes sense that they would. Bakersfield is a fast-growing city, with population growth of 41% over the last decade. That’s faster than any other city in California. But Bakersfield is isolated. It’s not on the coasts and the economic powerhouse of Los Angeles is a long 2 hour drive away – and in the winter, storms sometimes make the trip a lot longer if the Grapevine is closed. With gas prices soaring, Bakersfield is going to find itself in dire economic straits if it can’t get itself better connected to the rest of the state.

That’s where high speed rail comes in. As most Bakersfield residents seem to understand, by providing fast and affordable service to Southern California, Bakersfield’s future becomes very, very bright. The city would be less than an hour from downtown LA, which is a far better commute than for many people even in the Los Angeles basin itself. Combined with affordable housing costs, Bakersfield could legitimately become a bedroom community for LA – or it could tap LA talent for businesses based in Bakersfield. As with other mid-size cities along HSR lines, such as Ciudad Real or Zaragoza in Spain, Bakersfield would be poised to experience significant economic growth from high speed rail. So it’s no wonder that residents and local elected officials support the project.

That also makes Kevin McCarthy’s denunciation of the high speed rail project all the more bizarre:

A fourth-generation Bakersfield native, McCarthy said Tuesday that California and the federal government would both be wise to avoid spending billions of dollars on a train he predicted would become a money sink.

“In today’s world, is that the best place to put the money? The answer is no,” McCarthy told reporters. “I don’t think it’s a smart investment.”

Echoing other critics, McCarthy on Tuesday characterized the initial planned 123-mile route from Bakersfield to tiny Borden in rural Madera County as a “train to nowhere.” He said the train would be poorly used and would inevitably leave taxpayers on the hook for endless subsidies.

“Look at where California is (financially),” McCarthy said. “They don’t have enough money to build it now.”…

“If you can’t prove it’s viable from a business plan, it’s not a (project) the government should be funding,” McCarthy said Tuesday.

All of this is ignorant nonsense. First, the initial construction segment would connect Bakersfield to Fresno, not Borden – a key detail both McCarthy and the reporter left out. More importantly, it starts the process of connecting Bakersfield to the Bay Area and ultimately to Southern California. Anyone in Bakersfield who doesn’t think that’s important simply does not have the best interests of Kern County in mind – and wasn’t paying attention when Kern County voters said yes to high speed rail in 2008.

Second, California does have enough money to pay for our portion of the train costs. In that same election that McCarthy apparently didn’t notice, Kern County voters joined the rest of the state in approving a $10 billion bond. The private sector has shown great willingness to fund it. So too has the federal government – except Congressional Republicans, and McCarthy just so happens to be the #3 man in the House GOP hierarchy. More on that in a moment.

Third, as I explained on Monday, the idea that high speed rail would be a “money sink” is a lie that has no basis at all in the evidence. The Amtrak Acela train, just barely a high speed system, isn’t a money sink at all – it covers its own costs. Same with virtually every other HSR line in the world.

Finally, McCarthy claims that the project doesn’t have a viable business plan, which isn’t true. But as we’ve seen with many other HSR critics and opponents, any business plan that the Authority publishes isn’t good enough for them. These opponents won’t be satisfied until the trains are actually showing a profit, and even then they’ll find some way to argue that they’re still a money sink.

And that gets us to what’s really going on here. McCarthy is not representing his constituents, who want high speed rail and the thousands of jobs and other economic benefits it will bring. No, McCarthy is representing the oil companies, including the notorious Koch Brothers, who are now calling the shots in national Republican politics. Charles and David Koch, not the people of the 22nd district, are McCarthy’s real constituents. They’re the ones he cares about.

And the Koch Brothers, along with the other leaders of the right-wing movement, have clearly set their sights on high speed rail. In the last couple of weeks the attacks on HSR from the right have been noticeably more intense, and the conservative pundit class have all been taking their turns attacking it, which suggests strongly to me that someone sent out a memo explaining that now is the time to attack high speed rail.

McCarthy is therefore just following orders – but they’re not the orders of his own constituents. If he were listening to Kern County, he’d know that they want this train badly, and they won’t be happy if he tries to kill it.

They stood out there and shouted. “Go Back Home!” They stood out there and they booed as parents walked into a building with their kids. They stood out there and shouted obscenities at children.

“They” are the terrorists who wrapped themselves in the flag in Yorba Linda and who embraced fascism, hatred, and inhumanity at a fundraising dinner for a local Islamic charity. “They” included two United States Congressmen, Ed Royce and Gary Miller, who should be thrown out of the House immediately for their attendance at this horrible, awful display of venomous hate. “They” included a Villa Park city councilwoman who suggested that the Marines send these peaceful Americans “to paradise.”

Having been born and raised in Orange County, with a lot of family and friends still living there, I know the place’s reputation as a right-wing bastion. I know the stories of the popularity of the John Birch Society, because people I know participated in it in the 1950s and 1960s. I know well the hatred of Latinos that still characterizes far too many white attitudes in Orange County. And I know well the bigoted attitudes towards Muslims.

But that’s not my Orange County. That wasn’t what I was raised to believe. That wasn’t the community I lived in. That wasn’t the values my friends and I shared as we went from childhood to adulthood.

My Orange County is a deeply diverse place – and is a place that welcomes and embraces that diversity. My Orange County would say to a Muslim family “welcome home” and never “go back home” – because my Orange County knows that they already are home. My Orange County takes pride in its Latino community and heritage. My Orange County knows the important role African Americans continue to play in our neighborhoods. My Orange County welcomed Asian Americans with open arms, as equals.

I know that’s not everyone’s Orange County. I have heard often the everyday racism and white privilege that can also characterize life there. It is not only real, it is pervasive. I know that many people of color do not feel safe, or equal, or welcome in Orange County.

My point isn’t that Orange County isn’t racist. Clearly, some of it still is, or else that video could never have been shot. My point is instead to rally a different Orange County to stand up and reject this. Because there really is a different and a better Orange County out there. And it’s time it stood up and made itself seen and heard.

Sometimes people ask me how I became so left-wing given the fact that I spent the first 18 years of my life behind the orange curtain. They find it even more surprising when they learn I was in a Rush Limbaugh Fan Club at age 14, that I was in the Young Republicans at age 15. But at age 16 and 17 I woke up. I began to mature. I began to realize that true strength, true freedom, and true patriotism comes from embracing the reality of a diverse community, and not from cowardly shouting horrible things at people who are my neighbors. I learned that everything I believed in – equality, justice, freedom – was opposed by the right. And I learned that the right no longer represented my values, if they ever did at all.

Orange County is changing. Democrats have found a home there. Sooner or later – and hopefully sooner, as in 2012 – more Democrats will make breakthroughs and take state legislative and Congressional seats from the hatemongers, whose numbers are dwindling fast. Bill Hedrick and Debbie Cook came close in 2008. Melissa Fox and Phu Nguyen put up a strong fight in 2010. Local Democratic elected officials in cities across the county put in long hours and persevere in the face of dogged efforts by the right-wing establishment to cling to power.

I have always believed that Orange County would turn blue someday. That day is fast approaching. And no wonder some on the right are lashing out at the forces they cannot control, at the changes they cannot stop. They believed that Orange County was theirs – a place for the white right alone. They were always wrong. Their children never bought into the lie. But they deluded themselves into thinking it was true. Now that the truth is clear, they are fighting back with all the venom and hate they can muster.

My Orange County doesn’t accept that. My Orange County won’t stand for it. I hope and expect my Orange County to tell every single person who participated in that hateful rally to go back to that Islamic community, get on their knees and beg for forgiveness.

And if they don’t, my Orange County will tell those right-wing bigots to “go back home” – because they don’t have any place in my Orange County. Because they are not welcome in my Orange County. Because my Orange County moved on from that kind of hate a long, long time ago.

Someone needs to give Carolyn Lochhead a clue. In her post on Republicans targeting high speed rail funding, she writes:

Bankrupt California has already collected nearly $4 billion in federal money for a project that is expected to cost at least $42 billion (critics predict that will double). Approved by voters in 2008, the project would link San Francisco and Sacramento with Los Angeles and San Diego via the Central Valley. The first link between Bakersfield and Fresno is supposed to break ground in 2012.

Ahem. California is not bankrupt. The state has enough money to pay its bills, and more than enough money to pay its creditors. In fact, the same day that Lochhead was popping off about bankruptcy, California Treasurer Bill Lockyer was busy explaining to the media that California isn’t in danger of bankruptcy and that the Republican fantasy of forcing state bankruptcies is “ludicrous”:

“It’s a cynical proposal, intended to incite a panic in response to a phony crisis,” Mr. Lockyer said on a conference call with journalists. “Killer bees, space aliens, and now it’s the invasion of the bankrupt states.”…

Mr. Lockyer, a Democrat, said he thought this “ludicrous” idea had been cooked up by politically ambitious Republicans. “Their allies,” he said, naming them as big insurance companies, banks and hedge funds, would torpedo the idea, because “even the faint odor of bankruptcy hurts the values of the bonds that they hold.”

In that sense, Lochhead’s article reminds me of another time a prominent member of the media sided with the space aliens against the human race.

Lochhead also screws up when she calls rail a “big bet” in her article. Um, if it’s a bet, it’s one that California is guaranteed to win. Every HSR line in the world, including Amtrak’s Acela on the Northeast Corridor, has generated profits and high ridership.

Sigh.

To hear California Republican apologists, their party’s collapse in the 2010 elections in the Golden State are due to a bad “brand,” as Carla Marinucci and Joe Garofoli report:

“Republicans, as a brand, are dead,” Duf Sundheim, the former state GOP chair, told the gathering Saturday….

“There’s a brand problem,” agreed Republican Jim Brulte, former state Senate minority leader.

California voters supported a number of conservative ballot measures, yet not a single conservative lawmaker for statewide office, Brulte noted. Voters made it clear they “just don’t want Republicans in office.”

Heh. If only it were that simple, guys. As I explained after the election, the CA GOP has made itself unelectable by being a white man’s party. It’s not a branding problem – it’s that Californians do not want the Republican agenda. The party’s right-wing base hates public services, hates Latinos, hates young people, and hates 21st century California. No amount of new branding can change those underlying facts.

As to Jim Brulte’s point about ballot initiatives, if he and his fellow Republicans were so confident that voters agreed with them on tax policy, why are they unwilling to let Californians vote on taxes? The truth is that on taxes too, Californians don’t agree with Republicans. If voters are told to pick schools or low taxes, even Republicans know that voters will pick schools. This would expose as fraudulent the GOP/Norquist claim that voters dislike taxes, and weaken the collapsing Republican political position in this state even further.

There did appear to be some Republicans at the Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies conference who understood the basic problem they face:

“Republicans need to learn how to talk to non-traditional Republican voters,” said Bettina Inclan, who worked on the communications team for losing California GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner. Not just Latinos, she said, but African Americans and young people, too.

Republicans will remain dead in California until the party “decides it won’t be hostile to people who aren’t old and white,” said Darry Sragow, interim director of the USC/Los Angeles Times Poll and a longtime Democratic strategist.

Both assessments are correct, although it’s surprising to see this coming from Inclan, whose former candidate Poizner demonstrated exactly the kind of politics that have doomed Republicans with his attacks on Latinos and immigrants in the GOP primary. While I wasn’t at the IGS conference, I certainly do hope that Inclan acknowledged that fact.

While other GOP apologists like Tony Quinn think that their party’s setback is temporary, noting that California Republicans bounced back from big losses in the early 1960s with Ronald Reagan in 1966, the fact is that their party is destined for the margins, and is already becoming a small fringe group with declining influence over our state’s future.

As I explained back in November, California politics are realigning into a new system dominated by two blocs – progressives, who believe that a strong public sector and economic democracy are the way to build shared prosperity; and corporate elites, who desire an economy dominated by a few wealthy people and with little to no safety net, but who also are “socially liberal” (meaning they support Latino civil rights but don’t care if they or anyone else can actually make ends meet). San Francisco and Los Angeles already exhibit that new two-bloc system, and 2010 was the election that showed it has arrived at the state level as well.

With both a top-two primary system and new districts coming into force next year, the stage is set for the permanent marginalization of the California Republican Party. With a base that hates everything about 21st century California, no candidate can make it to the second round without making that base happy – and yet any candidate that does so will therefore lose the general election because voters won’t accept a candidate who appeals to the GOP base.

Until that GOP bases ages away or moves away, the party will remain unelectable, and the corporate elites will simply run their own candidates, under their own silly brands, while progressives have to fight battles within the Democratic Party and on the ballot to stop the corporate elite from taking over our state.