government subsidy

Perhaps “bizarre” is not the appropriate word, as Matthew Yglesias is employed by the Obama administration’s barely unofficial think tank/PR shop Center for American Progress, which supports wasteful spending on high-speed rail — surprise! — just like the Obama administration. “Nonsensical” is probably a better adjective. Anyway, government-subsidy shill Yglesias took issue with Cato’s Tad DeHaven’s Cato @ Liberty post on Robert Samuelson’s excellent debunking of high-speed rail, but couldn’t really refute any of it. Instead, he claims $1 trillion isn’t that big of a deal:

Currently, the government needs to pay 4.1% interest on a thirty year bond. And according to the handy dandy amortization-calc.com to amortize a 30 year loan of $1 trillion at an interest rate of 4.1% per year would cost $57.99 billion a year for thirty years. Note that’s in fixed, nominal terms, so while it’s a fair amount of money in the short term by the 2030s it’ll be a joke relative to our Nominal GDP. Contrast that to the $708 billion FY 2011 budget request the Obama administration submitted. It seems to me that an 8.1 percent reduction in defense expenditures in order to create a transformative nationwide new infrastructure program would be a no-brainer.

Yglesias doesn’t consider whether or not high-speed rail makes sense from a cost/benefit perspective. It doesn’t. Nor does he address the inconvenient truth that many of the so-called “high-speed” rail corridors aren’t high-speed by developed-world standards. In fact, he doesn’t even make a case for high-speed rail; rather, he compares subsidies for his preferred project to defense spending. And that’s about it.

Cato’s Randal O’Toole posted a thoughtful response here.  It continues to amaze me that progressives, supposed champions of more egalitarian outcomes through heroic central planning, would support a government program that would primarily benefit wealthy urban elites. But when you consider the fact that most of them, including Dalton-Harvard alum Matthew Yglesias, are wealthy urban elites, things begin to make a little more sense.

Italy’s Senate has overturned a 1987 ban on nuclear power, passed in panic after Chernobyl.  This is good news for Italians, as they face some of the highest electricity rates in Europe.  Of course, this being Europe, the plants will probably be built with significant government subsidy, so there won’t be much we can learn from it about the viability of nuclear power built without government assistance.  Nevertheless, if European countries are going to meet the ambitious emissions targets they have adopted, nuclear power is going to have to play a large part in doing so.