I haven't studied this legislation and the Governor's decision at all. I can think of only one credible reason why governmental entities should be investing in a system of high speed rail. That has to do with trying to remain competitive among the advancing economies of the world, particularly China.

China is three years into a ten-year program to criss-cross the country with 23,000 miles of high speed rail. Their definition of "high speed rail" are routes and trains that can run at 220 miles per hour or faster! The system being built will cost China $300 billion (converted from the amount authorized by the Chinese government in Chinese yuang). I might note that this is about three times the amount we've spent fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001!

China's stated reason for building such a system is to expand their economy by enabling employers to build plants and employ people in the far reaches of the country which without such a transportation system would remain remote, agricultural local economies. The plan is to significantly increase average personal income by providing new jobs. Their plan would significantly expand the consumer economy in China, making the country a far more important player in the world, both consuming the products they produce as well as expanding their productivity beyond the few urban centers which currently benefit from advanced transportation systems as well as a power grid.

The United States made a similar decision under President Eisenhower when the interstate highway system was built. We know the effect of that decision. In the intervening years since funding was provided for it's construction in 1956, little more has been done to expand the highways other than to expand it to respond to population growth. The system has a total length of 46,876 miles making it both the largest highway system in the world and the largest public works project in history. However, it is expected to be exceeded in terms of size by the Chinese expressway system at some point in 2011. Of course, the Chinese transportation grid would be further improved by the high-speed rail project.

So, can a short leg of high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando be justified? Maybe not. But should our political leaders be discussing ways to regain some competitive advantage for the U.S. such as resulted from the interstate highway system a half century ago? Should they be discussing investments in education and the infrastructure of our economy? You make the judgement. The tea partiers will say that this is not the role of the federal government and that we can't afford it. I would argue that we can't afford not to make such public investments and that we ought to be looking at prioritizing how and where we spend federal dollars to achieve the most for U.S. citizens.

In the meantime, the U.S.Congress can't decide whether to fund a nationwide system of broadband communications. The cost of such a system would be less than we spend fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for just one month! Maybe it should be pointed out that Singapore, an economy that is growing at a rate far greater than the U.S. will launch it's new broadband network in 2012. The Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network (Next Gen NBN) is expected to be deployed nationwide in Singapore by 2012 to offer competitively priced broadband speeds from 100Mbps, scalable up to one Gbps (gigabit per second) and beyond. (That's about 30 times faster than the typical broadband cable connection here in the U.S.) It will be rolled out in workplaces, homes and schools, and even to outdoor locations. Beyond the boost in speeds, a competitive retail broadband services market will open doors to new advancements such as interactive Internet Protocol TV, telemedicine, interactive e-education. On the education front the plan is to permit children to be taught advanced science and math interactively over the internet rather than trying to train or attract the large number of teachers which would be needed to achieve the sought-after higher level of education over the entire country.

Even the economically depressed country of Ghana has recently authorized the government-funded construction of a nationwide broadband network as a building block for the expansion of their economy and educational system. The system was designed by A.T. Kearney, a U.S. consulting firm, and is being built by Huawei Technologies, a Chinese ICT and telecommunication firm.

Does any of this stuff make you angry over the short-sightedness of our political leaders? Does anyone think we can remain a viable economic leader in the world when many other governments are investing in the infrastructure to expand their economies and improve the education of their people who will use it while our leaders spend virtually all their energies raising money or posturing themselves to garner votes for re-election from their "base"?

Where have all our leaders gone?