More on the High-Speed Rail Shortfall, Possible Investigations

High speed rail development and construction in Fresno in the central Sanwaking Valley has consumed more than eleven point four billion dollars in state and federal funds, with about one point seven billion more budgeted through the end of the twenty twenty four to twenty twenty five fiscal year in June. So we have one point seven billion dollars still just for this fiscal year. This fiscal year wrapping up in about four months, still have one point seven billion to go.

President Trump promised this month to investigate the California High Speed Rail Authorities project because of cost overruns, delays, and a reduced scope for early operations. It seems completely legitimate the threat by a president who has been critical of the state's high speed rail project was already apparent a former California High Speedrail Authority CEO Brian Kelly, as he ended his six year tenure at the agency last summer.

Not only would finishing the merceaid to Bakersfield be at risk, he suggested, but so could any helpe of future extensions beyond the Valley to San Jose, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. I look at how we are doing with merced and Bakersfield with those extensions, and we've still got to get more federal money to get them done, Kelly told the President be in an August twenty twenty four interview. And the capital cost is so high to move beyond the valley,

You've got to have a big investment. What's going to be needed for San Francisco to La to happen is we're still going to need the federal partner to say get that done. Kelly expected the outcome of the presidential election to be a huge pivot point. You're either going

to have a federal partner or you're not. Well. Brian Kelly, former commissioner of the California High Speed Rail Authority, who has the same name, as my least favorite former Notre Dame football head coach, we don't have a federal partner on this. President Trump has his head screwed on right and is realizing, no, I am not going to commit

this kind of federal investment. And this is one of the many absurdities of both the original high speed rail project and twenty the very consequential twenty nineteen Gavin Newsome decision to keep going rather than cut your losses. Let me explain when high speed rail was introduced in the

absolutely bonkers California election of two thousand and eight. Bonkers because we elected Barack Obama by a huge majority, and we passed Proposition eight to define marriages between one man and one woman, and we voted in favor of a high speed rail project. It was like all of the positives and negatives of democracy on full display in the

two thousand and eight California elections. But it was clear even then because this was how it was messaged, that oh, we'll get federal investment, and we'll get local investment, we'll get state investment, we'll get federal investment, we'll get private investment.

And that made sense in some sense anyway to think that that was happening in the political atmosphere of two thousand and eight, where George W. Bush was incredibly unpopular, quite likely that a Democrat was going to be elected president. We'd have, you know, at least four years of Democrat control in Washington, and Democrats like spending money, and so that seems like a reasonable expectation in two thousand and eight that we'd have federal partnership for funding the high

speed rail. And we had it. We had an amicable Democrat federal governance for eight years of the presidency. But unfortunately Republicans took control. Unfortunately for this way of thinking anyway, Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in the twenty ten elections, and Democrats did not have the trifecta at any point subsequently, so they didn't get the federal investment.

And especially over the course of the Obama years, when it became more and more obvious that the high speed rail project was just not going anywhere. The cost estimate, the cost estimates just kept going up up up up up up up up up. The logistical problems just got more and more and more and more and more difficult. The original team from France that had designed France's high speed rail authority socker Bleau. They gave us all this

good advice and we just ignored them. Huh. Stage. My dad once convinced one of his colleagues at Valley Children's Hospital that he knew how to speak French and took a trip with him to Montreal for like a medical conference.

Convinced his buddy, one of his partners, that he knew how to speak French because he like two or three times said like corny French sayings like just orange around him, just like that, with just a ridiculous you know pepe La put cheesy French accent, and his partner actually believed him for a little bit and then realized he was just being an idiot. Now we ignored the advice of the guys who designed the French high speed rail system

that was really successful. All these political deals were made for having it route through the San Joaquin Valley, blah blah blah blah blah. The costs got higher and higher and higher, and nothing was accomplished. During all eight years of the Biden of the Obama administration, nothing got accomplished, and we then all of a sudden, twenty sixteen comes around. Oh it's Donald Trump and Republican complete control of the House and Senate. Okay, well, no one, Republicans are absolutely

not funding this. Then twenty eighteen comes along. Gavin Newsom is elected governor. He's replacing Jerry Brown. Jerry Brown has this pie in the sky idealistic you know, environmental vision that of course we're gonna get this high speed rail done,

the environment needs it. And meanwhile, you know, twenty by twenty nineteen, like electric cars were really becoming a thing, and then the future possibilities of electric cars were becoming more and more obvious, which itself limits the necessity for a high speed rail project. I mean, one of the big ideas of high speed rail was that it was an environmental thing to lessen the number of Californians driving cars on roads and having emissions. So here's Gavin Newsom.

He just gets elected in twenty eighteen, it's early twenty nineteen. He's just come in as governor. He's signaling that he's going to abandon the high speed rail project, and it's like, our, well, is he really going to do this? And he's going to be the mature adult in the room and the way that Jerry Brown couldn't because Jerry Brown was too idealistic. What's he gonna No, Newsom decides to take this sort of half measure where he says, look, we're gonna get

Bakersfield to Merced done. That was twenty nineteen January, early twenty nineteen. He was saying this, We're gonna get Bakersfield to Merced done. Here we are in twenty twenty five, six years later, Bakersfield to mersaid still isn't done. It still is still not even funded, still not one inch of operable track. It's not done. We still don't have the money to finish it. We're still like not close, We're still not there. You've got the High Speed Rail

Commissioner talking about how we still need federal investment. And this is the ass There are so many aspects of the high speed rail project that are ludicrous, the wildly to the wildly over optimistic projections of how much this

thing would cost. Back when it was introduced to the voters in two thousand and eight, which you know what, I actually went back and I looked at the ballot descriptions that were in the California like the in the sample ballots that were mailed to all the to everyone in California, and it has for that proposition, which I believe was Proposition one A in two thousand and eight. It has the pro and the con arguments for the

high speed rail. And one of the guys who who joined in for the con arguments for high speed rail was a former state senator from the Fresno area, Chuck Pucigian. And basically all of the people opposed to the high speed rail project in two thousand and eight were right. They were all right. They all predicted everything that was about to happen. The costs for this are going to be way higher than people think. The ability to get

investments is going to be harder than people think. The logistical and engineering problems are going to be far more difficult than people are talking about or realizing right now. No, this is a terrible idea, and they were all one correct. But here's the thing. So, granted, a gazillion aspects of this were bad, bad, silly, overly optimistic, rose tinted glasses whatever. I think. The aspect of it, though, that we are seeing is silliest right now with a news story like

this relying on federal investment. Relying on federal investment. We've had like two or three different kinds of movements within the Republican Party since Proposition one A to tell you that Republicans are not going to want to fund this

all right. We had certainly the nineteen ninety four era Republicans who wanted to cut spending, et cetera, were all, you know, we know that that's we knew in two thousand and eight that Strain was still in the Republican Party as much as Bush was a big spender and was you know, spending on left, right and center. But basically immediately after two thousand and eight you had the rise of the Tea Party movement in the Republican Party. Then you had the rise of Donald Trump Freedom Caucus.

You know, all these different kinds of movements within the Republican Party, so many of which are premised around one kind of hating California and two not wanting to spend, not wanting to spend, not liking deficit spending. The idea that we were all just these doe eyed simpletons in two thousand and eight thinking well, we'll definitely get federal This is such a cool project. Of course we'll get

federal investment. No, Republicans were never at the federal level, We're never going to want to fund something like this, and surprise, surprise, they haven't. California was able to get at a couple of points under Democrat administrations some federal funding for the high speed rail project. Not enough, not enough.

They had they have had. You know, from two thousand and eight until today, Democrats have had complete control of White House, House and Senate for a grand total of four years, the first two years of the Obama administration and the first two years of the Biden administration. But that's it. And I think the idea in two thousand and eight that well, of course we'd have all this

federal investment, Like what kind of idiocy. You knew in two thousand and eight Republicans wouldn't be hot on this deal, and you knew that this was going to be a big, long term project that was going to see politics shift and change in Washington, d C. Presidential administrations come and go, and in the case of Donald Trump, they come back again. Politics changes, The executive branch changes hands from Republican today

Democrat every four years. Sometimes the idea that we had this like infallible confidence that just the strength of how wonderful California is, just the strength of how wonderful we all are, would be enough to somehow convince National Republicans to spend billions of dollars on this project and to continue. I mean, you know, I guess kudo's to the High Speed Rail Authority Commissioner Brian Kelly, whose name I can't read without feelings of deep resentment towards again my least

favorite Notre Dame football coach of all time. Brian Kelly, the High Speed Rail Authority commissioner, saying, well, the twenty twenty four election is going to be a big inflection point. Yeah, no kidding. Maybe don't start a project that cannot be done without federal money where one of the two sides actively despises the project. President Trump is never gonna give us money for this thing, never never ever ever ever

ever ever ever ever ever. He's probably gonna try to find a way to try to stop giving us the money that has already been allocated, which itself isn't enough. So and again, this is one of there are so

many problems with the high speed rail question. From top to bottom A to Z. But the idea that we set off on this incredibly difficult, elaborate, expensive journey knowing that we couldn't do it without federal investment and that we would be at the mercy of the shifting winds of politics in Washington, d C. Federally is maybe one of the stupider aspects of the high speed rail that we were going to be totally reliant on who is president.

We've had like three different massive shakeups within the Republican Party since that time, none of which are favorable to building high speed rail projects in California. And that lack of sort of foresight to realize, hey, Republicans are never going to want this, maybe we should, you know, temper our expectations about public funding is now really biting us in the rear end. When we return electric cars, did

they render the whole high speed rail project moot? Next on the John Gerardy Show, big story about how, oh, there's all this money from the Trump administration that might not be coming for the high speed rail project. They've spent eleven point four billion state and federal funds for the construction of the San Joaquin Valley Branch of the high speed rail they need. They have one point seven billion more that's budgeted. There's four point three billion in

unspent federal grants, and oh guess what. Sorry looks like the Trump administration is gonna maybe pump the brakes on all this. Well, there's a story about it from the President b While the first two point five billion dollars in federal grants awarded by the Obama administration in two thousand and nine under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been fully spent, matched by an equal amount of state money, almost four point three billion remains unspent as

of November of twenty twenty four. Most of that was awarded by the Department of Transportation under the Biden administration. The unspent federal funds conceivably could be subject to cancelation by a hostile Trump administration. Now, so there's this again. We could talk at length about how really they managed to get that little federal investment during the Obama years. They got relatively less than they needed during the Biden years.

And so this whole idea that we would start the high speed rail project without having like real federal commitments secured a project that would need federal investment to actually be accomplished, when we did not have any real sense that we knew that that federal money was coming. And yet here we are. Now we're going to be trying to go hat in hand to Donald Trump to try

to see if we can get all of our money please. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's trying to pause federal spending on everything and is wanting to actually investigate the high speed rail authority, not fund it. This is the other thing, though, that I've been thinking about. Two thousand and eight, we didn't

really have too many electric cars. We had hybrids that a lot of people hated because Toyota priases look like crap, and all of a sudden, the people who drive them got a reputation for being, you know, snooty, annoying, you know, nose in the air, I'm better than you kind of people. And in two thousand and eight, one of the big reasons for promoting the high speed rail was the environment.

The basic premise from Democrats who supported the project was, we have too many people driving up and down I five and ninety nine, too many people driving We want to make our cities better with public transportation. And we want to have a method of transportation that is zero emissions and allows people to go up and down the state without air, without resorting to air travel, without resorting to driving. Also, it's like, why are cars so much

worse than air travel for some? I mean, one airplane ride is using way more, way more emissions than you know, however many rides in a car. But anyway, set that aside. But the thing was, in two thousand and eight, the idea of I mean, there were no tesla was not a thing. In two thousand and eight, electric cars were still a couple of years away. I remember the first electric car I drove was when my wife's Dodged Durrango

for you know, shuttling our family around. And my wife's Dodge Durrango was in the shop and the dealer gave us a loaner car. It was a Fiat, an electric powered Fiat, and it only had a range. It said it had a range of eighty one miles per charge. I drove it, I think twelve miles and it said that I had used you know, six miles to work, six miles back home from one of my day's commutes.

And it told me that thirty three percent of its battery had been taken up, So yeah, I'm pretty sure it did not have an effective range of eighty one miles. Probably had a range of thirty six miles, and trying to get it onto I would take the one sixty eight to go to and from work. Getting onto the one sixty eight was like, oh, there's not a lot of gidea up in this thing, like trying to rev

the engine on a golf cart. Anyway, Tesla's were not around in two thousand and eight, and the sort of commitments from the state of California that you know, by twenty thirty five, one hundred percent of new vehicle sales

are going to be electric in California. Now, I think that's a ridiculous pie in the sky, almost certainly unattainable goal, but that is the stated goal, and undoubtedly we're going to see more electric cars though in the future that is that is true, whether you know one hundred percent of new cars, it seems ridiculous. Given that that's true, it takes away one of the big justifications for the high speed rail project. Again, the big justification for high speed

rail was fewer people driving, fewer emissions. If everyone's going to drive an electric vehicle, then what are we talking about? And that's the thing I've wondered throughout is who is going to ride this? Even if you take away the electric vehicle thing. Am I going to go to a train station downtown? You know, an hour in advance, you know, forty five minutes in advance of my train leaving, Get on the train, take the train to Bakersfield, say get

off the train. All the logistics of that rather than get in my car, drive to two hours and I'm drive for two hours and I'm in Bakersfield. I don't think you're gonna save any time. And it's actually logistically more difficult to do the train because then you get to Bakersfield, what do you do? Well? I guess now I gotta call an uber, I gotta get a cab, I gotta rent a car. It's not like you can walk Bakersfield. So anyway, top to bottom, high speed rail

is an idiotic thing. Now the Trump administration is investing it, investigating it, possibly going to try to cut off whatever funding has already been allocated to high speed rail, and the whole thing is becoming more and more disastery every week when we return my next little writing project, I think, how USAID probably funded every movement in Latin America legalized abortion.

Next on the John Jardi Show. The cool things about the doge guys and their investigation into us AID that I've noticed is no sooner do I think a thing than it immediately gets revealed to have been true. I thought to myself, huh, what kind of thing seems like it would be funded by USAID, all these sort of international programs of the sort of the intersection between liberal folks in government and liberal folks in sort of the

big picture nonprofit world. I was like, oh, man, I'd bet money USAID was probably funding the Clinton Foundation, and of course it was. I bet USAID was probably funding this thing, and of course it was. It's like, how is there like this big push for like liberal pro

abortion stuff in Poland? For example? You know the recent Polish elections, the more conservative party lost, and sure enough it's revealed, Oh, all the left wing media in Hungary, in Poland and all these countries that have more conservative governments, it's all funded by USAID. One of the things I have noticed over the last ten years or so is a number of different movements in Latin America to legalize abortion. And obviously this is sort of within my baliwick as

mister right to life. But I noticed a couple of things about it. First, the way in which it came to be that the pro abortion movement came to be sort of pushed in Latin American media. How legal and political and judicial developments for the abortion issue immediately got aired and blasted into American media. It seems perfectly synchronous. You know, we don't hear about all kinds of other developments in law and politics within Latin American countries. This

stuff got boo blasted all over CNN. When the Supreme Court in Mexico changes something, all the stories look exactly the same. And how obviously well funded these things are for movements that are allegedly these little grassroots movements. It seems hmmm, oh, everyone in this large crowd of people that are celebrating legalized abortion in you know, Columbia, Argentina, massive you know, historically Catholic countries that have had restrictions

on abortion. Every single person there is wearing a color coordinated green scarf. HM. Who paid for those? And I thought, well, this must be USAID lo and behold my buddy. I think Keller sends me this. USAID and the global pro abortion agenda. A dark money scandal exposed. So yes, USAID has in fact been funding a lot of this stuff.

The development raises significant ethical and legal questions about the agency's adherence to federal laws, such as the Helm's Amendment, which prohibits the use of US funds for abortions as a method of family planning. So the trojan horse of USAID funding abortion through loopholes. Now reports indicate that, in spite of the Helm's Amendment, USAID has been channeling funds into reproductive health programs that indirectly support organizations advocating for

abortion legalization abroad. A twenty twenty two report by the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, highlighted that from twenty seventeen to twenty twenty one, i e. The First Bush for the first Trump administration, USAID faced challenges ensuring that foreign non governmental organizations did not perform or promote abortion as a

condition of receiving US funds. The Mexico City Policy, which blocks USAD from going to organizations that provide abortion counciling referrals has been alternately reinstated and rescinded by successive administrations. Its fluctuating nature has allowed USAID to fund groups that will not directly performing abortions actively lobby for abortion's rights. The recent legalization of abortion in countries like Argentina, Columbia, and Mexico has often been portrayed as the result of

domestic advocacy. However, evidence suggests that international organizations, some receiving USAID support, have played a significant role in these movements. For instance, USAID's partnership with Mexico has advanced family planning initiatives,

which include components that align with pro abortion advocacy. USAID's involvement in developing and promoting modern contraceptive methods has been documented, indicating a broader agenda that may compass abortion related services, which also leads me to ask the question, why are our federal tax dollars going to promote even if you are totally you know, I'm catholic and I have my beliefs on contraception and family planning stuff more generally, but

why are we spending money on family planning like contraception programs for foreign governments? Why? Why is that? What connection whatsoever does that have with American foreign policy? Literally, what benefit does that give us? I don't want to get into sort of a pure libertarian approach to this stuff, but like you know that, I mean, America is a big,

powerful country. It's the hegemon on the world stage. We have the ability and if we are promoting good things, you know, if we believe that what we believe as a country, our national identity is good, then we maybe could should use the soft power of funding, influence, culture, et cetera to promote good things on the world stage. And maybe the notion that we should just be that we should be or can be a total ostrich in

the sand. Just we're the most powerful country in the world and we have no broader cultural, ethical, moral, legal influence on culture, law, politics, et cetera in other countries. Is maybe that's a naive approach. But at the same time, there's a part of me that's still attracted by this sort of libertarian argument of why are we spending any money on family planning for Mexico or for Latin American countries If they can't fund it them, that's not our responsibility.

And it seems like there's so much of American foreign policy where it's like, well, we need to keep doing this because if you know, if we don't intervene in this foreign war, then innocent people will die without thinking through. Okay, first of all, are you sure that if we intervene more people might not die? Are are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure if we had just left Iraq alone,

we would have had just a better situation. Overall, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of our interaction, many of them would not have died. Isis would not have come to be. There's a lot of bad things, you know. Us invading Iraq because of the alleged you know, humanitarian plight of people living under Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destructions that turn out not to be was a net negative probably for the

region and for US. Everyone was a loser. Similarly, with this foreign aid stuff, it's like, well, if the United States doesn't fund this, then nobody will fund Really, are we sure? Are we sure that our funding for all

these programs, first of all, that these programs are actually helping. Secondly, do we know that the funding for these projects is actually getting to the people like we have this like infallible confidence in these liberal dominated technocratic institutions that yes, they are going to achieve what they are designed to achieve, and it's just not the case. I just do not have this level of confidence, nor I think should anybody.

So anyway, I'm off course here, on and on and on, this story goes about, oh yeah, basically all of these big Latin American movements to legalize abortion are in fact not the result of grassroots with Indigenous women rising up for their rights. No, it's liberals in the United States funding organizations to advance it and in some cases funding it skirting oversight from the Trump administration from the first

Trump administration to do it. And if Elon Musk can bring stuff like this to heal it will be a massive benefit for the world. When don't we return my brief thoughts on the Kendrick Lamar halftime show next on The John Girardi Show. The Super Bowl halftime show is always a fairly significant little cultural moment, sort of gives us checks the temperature of who's popular and whatnot in American culture at the time, and the halftime show this year, uh,

the starring attraction was Kendrick Lamar. Kendrick Lamar is a rapper. Say he's a pretty good rapper. His most popular song right now is a song talking about how another rapper named Drake has been having relationships with underage women. And it is basically an extended basically a verbal drive by assassination that is pretty hilarious at points and devastating towards Drake, who is Drake is like actually an incredibly popular famous

pop slash rap singer. In fact, it's so bad that this this song by Kendrick Lamar about Drake, which became

like number one most popular song in America. It's so been so devast stating to Drake's reputation that and I don't think rappers really ever do this when they get into wrap Beef's Drake actually has sued the record company for a defamation lawsuit, saying that Kendrick Lamar has promoted the idea that he's a pedophile and that actually he had a security guard who got shot by somebody because of Kendrick Lamar's Like it's that level of devastating, and

here's Kendrick Lamar in front of, you know, hundreds of millions of people watching the Super Bowl looking right into the camera and calling Drake a pedophile right to his face, which is kind of funny. You know. I guess there's a part of me that's like, well, if that's not true, then it's the most horrific, evil act of you know,

slander in human history. Now the the halftime show. One of the things that's funny about is that all of that that I just described the idea of you know rap battles, you know distracks in rap where basically rappers get into arguments with each other and write a rap song talking about how horrible the other person is and

insulting the other person. There's this tradition of this within rap, and Drake and Kendrick Lamar having some sort of feud for some reason, all of this is completely incomprehensible by anyone over the age of fifty, who constitute a large

part of the television audience. There's no which leads me to think, all right, the Super Bowls probably realizing that this went too far, and I'm or they're probably going to think that this whole thing went too far, and next year what we're going to do is we're going to have the safest, whitest musical act ever. Maybe next year, here's the Taylor Swift super Bowl. I don't know, but you are the Taylor Swift super Bowl. Maybe maybe even

the Carrie Underwood super Bowl. But yeah, there's well it's gonna be an NBC super Bowl, so maybe it will be Carrie Underwood. You know, she's miss NBC. Now. So I've been laughing because basically every old person in America has had found the super Bowl halftime show to be completely incomprehensible and it's totally understandable, including even just like not actually being one hundred percent able to understand what

Kendrick is saying. I mean, the Patois of modern day rap is not, you know, especially when it's going at a breakneck pace, is not going to be readily understandable. I think one of the things that's funny is Kendrick Mars trying trying to pose as if he's sort of anti establishment. It's like, dude, you're you're literally the super Bowl halftime show. There's nothing more like mainstream than this.

Calm down, calm down a little bit. The other funny thing that I heard someone say was that white people will say that they couldn't understand a word, Kendrick Lamar said, and then put on some Pearl Jam. Come on, nobody could understand anything the Pearl Jam is singing either, So that'll do it. John Girardi Show, See you next time on Power Talk