Flickr Stock Image

President Obama wants to spend taxpayer money (to the tune of $8,000,000,000) on Amtrak to improve and expand the American passenger rail system.  I hope the money is spent well, because right now there are seious problems with traveling by train.

Suppose I wanted to travel from Denver to Salt Lake City.  There is a route, the California Zephyr, that travels once a day between these two cities.  I would have to leave Denver at 8am, to arrive in Salt Lake City 15 hours later at 11pm.  I would also have to pay $65 dollars to do so.

In comparison, I can drive at 25 mpg and at $2.50/gallon gas from Denver to Salt Lake City, 545 miles, for $55 and only take about 8 hours to drive that.

Even better, I can find a $49 flight on Southwest that will get me to Salt Lake in only an hour and a half.

Why would I want to spend more money and more time traveling by train, when I can travel faster and cheaper by both car and plane?

(image credit)

Related posts:

1. Cleaner cars not best for economy Recently, Obama signed a request for the Environmental Protection Agency...
2. Best democrat for swing states Hillary Clinton’s latest claim why she is the better candidate:...
3. Preparing for thanksgiving A few thoughts I have today: I still haven’t packed,...

While I support the idea of creating a cleaner environment and reducing our dependency on foreign fuel, I think this is a bad move in this economy for two reasons.

First, this would give single states too much power over the U.S. economy. Auto makers cannot simply create a version of their product lines for California–they would have to drastically revise their products for the entire country. This gives California too much power and leverage over the entire U.S. economy, which is currently very delicate.

Secondly, requiring automakers to research and develop more fuel-efficient cars would place additional burdens on a fragile auto industry. Just last fall, the U.S. auto industry asked the U.S. government for a $25 Billion bailout. Placing further restrictions upon the American automakers will only cause them more trouble, to the point where they will need even more bailout money.

I want a cleaner environment, but I don’t think it is worth the cost of bankrupting the auto-industry, possibly causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Creating tougher environmental regulations may be a good thing, but only on the federal level, and only when the economic conditions can support additional auto industry restrictions.

Obama’s request for these regulatory changes is careless and irresponsible. The number one problem in America today is the economy. But instead of working to correct the economy, Obama is trying to please too many special interests, which is instead causing further harm to the economy. It seems like Obama is trying harder to polish his democratic public image than he is to fix a failing economy.

Related posts:

1. Russia tests the new President-Elect Obama’s first day as President-Elect has already brought international tests. ...
2. Best democrat for swing states Hillary Clinton’s latest claim why she is the better candidate:...
3. The problem with traveling by train   President Obama wants to spend taxpayer money (to the...

How will Obama react? Will he stand strong and firm against this Russia political aggression?  Or will he allow Russia to continue an arms building without opposition?

This is not just about a few missiles here or there.  This is a Russian test of Obama. Russia is figuring out how much they can do with the new President.  They are testing the Obama waters to see how much they can get away with.

Related posts:

1. Moderator bias and the VP debates Suppose the moderator of tonight’s vice presidential debates is writing...
2. Best democrat for swing states Hillary Clinton’s latest claim why she is the better candidate:...
3. Cleaner cars not best for economy Recently, Obama signed a request for the Environmental Protection Agency...

Recently news broke that Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant. I tuned into CNN to find a full panel of guests discussing this news item.

Even presidential opponent Barack Obama deplores news coverage of this claiming that “people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits.”

Having heard so much about journalistic integrity, I found the fact that CNN chose to cover a story about a teenage pregnancy (remember Palin’s daughter is still a minor) surprisingly horrific. I can only imagine the devastation this might bring to a 17 year old girl as she watches news of her pregnancy being reported on national television.

CNN’s self-proclaimed motto is “The most trusted name in news,” but there is nothing trustworthy about reporting news of a teenage pregnancy, regardless of who her parents might be. Shame on CNN for representing a very low and unethical level of journalism.

Related posts:

1. Best democrat for swing states Hillary Clinton’s latest claim why she is the better candidate:...
2. Moderator bias and the VP debates Suppose the moderator of tonight’s vice presidential debates is writing...
3. Russia tests the new President-Elect Obama’s first day as President-Elect has already brought international tests. ...

“The states that I’ve won total 300 electoral votes,” she told about 300 people in a high school gymnasium in Maysville, the birthplace of the actor George Clooney. “The question is who can win 270 electoral votes? My opponent has won states totaling 217 electoral votes.” (Source: New York Times)

Additionally, Clinton discounts Obama’s wins in red states: states that traditionally vote republican, such as Utah, Idaho, Texas, and others.

While I believe Clinton’s claims are somewhat silly, I’ll humor the idea for just a moment to do some of my own math.

There are 8 states who have, in the last four presidential elections, voted for the republican candidate twice, and the democratic candidate twice. These states are: Nevada, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states)

Now if we consider these 8 swing states, the number of electoral college votes each of these states contributes toward the general presidential election, and the democratic candidate who had the most popular vote, we arrive at these numbers:

• Nevada, 5 votes, won by Clinton
• Louisiana, 9 votes, won by Obama
• Arkansas, 6 votes, won by Clinton
• Mississippi, 11 votes, won by Obama
• Tennessee, 11 votes, won by Clinton
• Kentucky, 8 votes, yet to be determined
• West Virginia, 5 votes, won by Clinton
• Ohio, 20 votes, won by Obama

The totals are: Clinton – 27, Obama – 40.

These numbers seem to indicate that Obama has the best chance to pick up more electoral college votes from these swing states.

Even if we broaden our definition of a swing state to include any state that has been mixed in the presidential voting anytime in the last four elections, Obama still beats Clinton, 71 to 57.

Related posts:

1. Register to Vote Recently I’ve been seeing all these “register to vote” or...
2. Hillary Clinton, Yuck! Well, the day after the 2004 presidential election and Larry...
3. Shame on CNN I tuned into CNN on Monday night expecting to hear...