Listen to 'RTD Off the Rails'

RTD and its Fastracks rail system are a mess. In his June 11 radio special, John Andrews asked why. The podcast is now up. As you remember, a big tax increase was proposed, then postponed. RTD’s general recently quit and left town. So what put this thing so far over budget? If we raise taxes again, what reason is there to trust the agency for this time? And what are the affordable alternatives for metro mobility that special interests ignore?

Click here to listen to "Under the Dome: RTD Off the Rails." This is John's hour-long conversation with State Rep. Spencer Swalm, a specialist in market solutions for transportation... Kevin Holst, Denver attorney and citizen activist... and Jon Caldara, former RTD board chairman who's now president of the Independence Institute.

It's the latest in our monthly series on key issues for Coloradans.

Facing facts on FasTracks

The RTD FasTracks project was originally billed as a $4.7 billion savior to our region’s transportation needs. In 2004, voters who approved the measure were told that with FasTracks voters would know exactly what they are going to get, which was supposed to be a distinctive gem for the 8-county Denver metropolitan area. Today, the project is now at a critical crossroads. Critics are rightfully wondering aloud whether the project is going to end up being nothing more than a lump of coal paid for with billions in taxpayer dollars.

Recently, RTD’s Board of Directors wisely decided against placing a doubling of the FasTracks tax on the ballot this fall. Among the primary reasons for this decision was the likelihood that a tax increase proposed during turbulent economic conditions would likely fail at the ballot box in an off-year election.

At the forefront of RTD’s agenda these days is how best to sell this tax expansion to the voters. The expected ballot measure would likely include the addition of a .4% sales tax on top of the current 1% sales tax RTD receives on all goods purchased in the 8-county Denver metropolitan area. Before this region’s taxpayers are asked to deliver even more of our community’s limited resources to this special district’s massive and seemingly out of control project budget, RTD should consider the suggestions offered below as a means to gain back the public’s trust.

First, RTD must openly and honestly admit its mistakes. Please tell us where FasTracks went so very wrong. If it was poor fiscal forecasting, then tell us where you failed. Or, if it was RTD’s failure to secure assurances for right-of-ways from the railroads, then assure us that this won’t be an issue in the future. Please don’t just blame it on the cost of commodities and sales tax revenues. The public knows there is more to it than what we are being told.

RTD must also avoid letting our local elected officials down again. By and large, our local mayors and city councilpersons are a savvy and experienced group of leaders. Over the last few years, many have supported some of RTD’s unpopular positions regarding FasTracks because they recognized the important role that FasTracks could serve in their communities. However, RTD’s continued discussion of shortening lines does nothing but harm some of FasTracks earliest municipal supporters, including Boulder, Longmont and Thornton.

Currently, the Generally Assembly is evaluating the scope of the approved audit of RTD’s finances (i.e., an audit is required every five years). One would expect that FasTracks will be included in this audit. Irrespective of this audit, RTD must still take proactive steps to detail why the overall project costs have risen so dramatically.

Any admissions of mistakes by RTD must include a detailed assessment of how the cost estimates were so dramatically incorrect and an explanation of how these past mistakes will not be repeated. Specifically, the public deserves to know why updated project estimates are feasible and realistic.

If an essential project cost is contingent on certain events, please provide sufficient detail and worst case scenarios. After nearly five years of experience on the project, RTD must have a reasonable handle on these project contingencies. If not, then put someone is charge who does. The taxpayers do not deserve any more surprises or broken promises.

At this point in the project, RTD is well aware of the land required for successful completion of the project. Much has been discussed and written about RTD’s attempted use of eminent domain to acquire requisite land and, accordingly, RTD should disclose targeted land and how much it will cost the community. In the case of the Owens Corning shingle factory or other similar impacts, the disclosure must include not only the cost of acquiring the land but the likely loss of jobs and a profitable Colorado business.

Next, shed some light on FasTracks’ expected maintenance and operation costs over the next 25 years. What costs and expenses are we signing up for long-term? Once the new lines are in place, RTD should describe how these costs will be covered; albeit fees, taxes, or other avenues.

In addition, please give the public a reasonable and defendable completion date. Please spare us the pie in the sky dates if you want to restore some of RTD’s credibility.

In order to accomplish all of these objectives, FasTracks requires effective management, especially with the pending departure of RTD General Manager Cal Marsella. Regardless of individual fault, there are far too many broken promises by the current management and leadership team as a whole to trust the job to anyone within the existing power and decision-making structure. Potential management solutions could include the appointment of one person to manage FasTracks and another to manage the existing infrastructure.

Finally, RTD should consider establishing a FasTracks advisory committee composed of leaders from both sides of the political aisle. The advisory review committee should include FasTracks supporters who are the “who’s who” of the Denver business and political community. As a means of rebuilding the image of FasTracks, this committee’s primary charge would be to challenge project assumptions and strategies to ensure that proposals are thoroughly scrutinized and credible.

RTD’s lack of credibility in its management of the FasTracks’ budget combined with uncertain economic conditions effectively doomed any chance of a tax increase passing this fall. If RTD seeks to place a tax increase on the 2010 or future ballots, the immediate focus must be on taking proactive steps necessary to regain the public’s trust, including publically detailing where RTD went wrong and how it has learned from its mistakes.

FasTracks still has the potential to be a real gem for this community, but currently the project just looks like a lump of coal.

Iran's election shows Obama is a lot like Bush

Barack Obama apparently has more in common with his reviled predecessor, George W. Bush, than anyone on the left would like to believe. We've seen, of course, some grounding in Obama's national security policy since the election that has prompted him -- and other Democrats -- to maintain many of the Bush era's tactical policies in the war on terror (oops -- I meant "the fight against man-made disasters".) And while it true that he has recently sidled left on many issues -- releasing Gitmo detainees to Bermuda and Palau so that they can bask in the sun, for example -- the Obama administration has not gone nearly as far in rolling back the Bush national security regime than the left-wing base of the party has wanted. But the Obama administration's response to the Iranian elections shows a different kind of "Bushism", one that is less about policy and more about temperament and judgment. It seems that Obama's tepid response to the protests and the obvious fraud in the results may be a response to the president's simple inability to adjust his strategy to new information on the ground. As Robert Kagan writes in the Washington Post today, Obama has a plan for dealing with Iran, and it is based on having a stable leadership in place:

One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."

This approach had always been a key element of a "grand bargain" with Iran. The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal. The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism.

It would be surprising if Obama departed from this realist strategy now, and he hasn't...Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.

So it appears that the tail (Obama's original strategy of engaging Iran's hard-line government in diplomacy) is now wagging the dog -- namely the unprecedented grass-roots democratic movement that is collectively risking life and limb on the streets of Tehran. The goal of the U.S. government should be to encourage and empower true democracy in Iran -- not to legitimize the totalitarian Islamic regime that is in power. By the luck of the Iranian regime's sheer arrogance, that opportunity now exists. But Obama is too vested in his original course of action to change, and can't seem to see that a new approach might now be warranted. He's following a strategy that is almost certain to fail; most people can clearly see that the prospects of real progress with the theocracy in Iran is poor at best. It's a double down on a bad hand.

The parallels with Bush in Iraq in 2005-2006 are striking. During the height of the insurgency and the sectarian strife that followed, Bush stuck far too long with the failed "attrition" strategy of Gens. Abizaid and Casey, preferring to double down on a bad hand of his own. The tactics of the American military in Iraq were clearly not working; month-after-month the evidence was coming in that things were getting worse and not better. Bush knew that his strategy in Iraq was failing, and yet seemed paralyzed to make the kind of strong, decisive decision to change that he was known for. Not until early 2007 did the surge take root with real changes in tactics, strategy and personnel.  For far too long, Bush didn't have the judgment and temperament to look closely at the results of his previous policies.  The result was that the successful surge of 2007-2008 could have likely been done earlier,  in 2004-2005, with much better results for both America and Iraq.

Obama is in the midst of a similar paralysis; he needs a "surge" on Iran, but he is afraid to tear up his script. His policy of "negotiating without preconditions" with Iran is a cornerstone of his foreign policy plan, and his deep belief in the power of his own diplomatic skills in getting some trans formative change from Iran is dominant. Its where hubris meets naivete -- and its a dangerous place for America to be.

Abortion, slavery both founded in violence

The recent murder of George Tiller, the famous late-term abortionist in Kansas, brought differing reactions from the pro- and anti-abortion movements. The former saw it as the predictable consequence of anti-abortion speech and the latter reaffirmed their commitment to peaceful political action to overturn abortion on demand, the decree of Roe v. Wade (1973). The defenders of "reproductive choice" have declared in statements to the media that it is not enough that Tiller’s murderer be charged and ultimately convicted of that crime, but that it be treated as a form of "domestic terrorism." U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is already pursuing that course.

The pro-life movement is very concerned that it will be unfairly besmirched by the actions of a tiny few. I don’t know if the acts of violence against abortion clinics or practitioners are as numerous as abortion supporters say or as few as abortion critics maintain. But I do know that pro-life organizations do not endorse violence.

In any case, abortion is an act of violence. If successful, it always results in the death of a preborn human being, developing in the mother’s womb. As such, it is a violation of the natural right to life, not to mention liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator.

However, it has been the law of the land for 36 years and it must be obeyed. Laws can be changed, and this one ought to be as soon as a majority of both houses of Congress and the President pass a law removing the regulation of abortion from the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

That will be a long time, I fear. If it is any consolation to all of us who are pro life, slavery was legal in this nation for 250 years before its demise, the latter thanks to Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (1863) and the passage of the Thirteen Amendment (1865). I pray that we do not have to wait that long, but I know that it will never happen unless Americans come to look upon it as a wrong, just as they did slavery.

It so happens that an event akin to the murder of George Tiller occurred in October, 1859, when the radical abolitionist John Brown led a raid on Harper’s Ferry, a military outpost in Virginia, in order to seize arms and ammunition for the purpose of equipping slaves sofor an insurrection to destroy slavery. The plan failed and culminated in the hanging of Brown and his collaborators.

Soon slaveholders and their allies were demanding a federal law to suppress all speech and writings against slavery, on the grounds that it incites violence against an institution which was, sad to say, protected by the U.S. Constitution. President-elect Lincoln made it clear that he would never sign such a law, not because he believed no speech whatsoever should be curbed, but because it would be wrong to prosecute anyone for speaking the truth!

In a letter Lincoln wrote to his life-long friend Joshua Speed in 1855 when violence broke out over the attempt to introduce slavery into the Kansas Territory, the future president saw a link between  introducing slavery and the violence that resulted. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, he wrote,

"was conceived in violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise [which had kept slavery out of the Louisiana Territory], under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was passed in violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members [of Congress] in violence of the known will of their constituents. It is maintained in violence, because the elections since clearly demand its repeal; and the demand is openly disregarded."

These strong words are no less applicable to Roe v. Wade, which legitimated the violent act of abortion, was made supreme law without the action of our elected representatives, and has been declared a "super precedent" that cannot be overturned even by peaceful means. In the wake of the Tiller murder, we are seeing calls to suppress the opinions of those who oppose the "procedure" which has resulted in the lawful deaths of more than 45 million babies.

We should condemn the murder of anyone, whether it be a man empowered by an unjust law, or the victims of his despicable acts.

Focus on jihadists, not DC gunman

The real danger of the shooting in DC will be the moral equivalence struck by the media between this lone nut and Islamic terrorists. This incident will be used to validate the recent statement by Janet Napolitano on the “Threat of Right-Wing Extremism”. For CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN, it will be six of one, half a dozen of the other. Thus, to serve one's country is to be put on a suspicion list by the DHS. After all, the man arrested in Washington DC was "another of those veterans" -- having served in World War II over 60 years ago! The key feature that’s intentionally glossed over is the magnitude of the subversion by the Islamists in the United States in comparison with the “white supremacy” groups. Documents outlining the vast scope of the Saudi funded Islamist efforts are basically ignored! As if one elderly 88 year old is equivalent to a quarter of a million black prison converts to Islam, many voicing hatred of America and white people!

As was said before, the “shooter” in Washington DC is 88 years old. The question one has to ask is this: what can be done to an 88 year old man? Life imprisonment? The death penalty? The man has already exceeded the average life expectancy! In either case, he will leap into his grave laughing!