Tim Eyman is not feared, his is a crude weapon and lonely voice for frustrated taxpayors who do not believe in ever increasing rates of taxation that are at best poorly spent.

Public art at dump sites, apartment buildings for drunks that allow drinking onsite, failure to cut budgets when welfare rolls drop, the second highest salaries in the state for teachers in Marysville to turn out some of the states worst students, the most expensive several miles of highway in the world (the Mercer Island I-90 freeway held this title for several years), an explosion in State workers under the watch of Gary Locke in excess of the overall population growth in the State and non-existent worker productivty in the State labor force when the private sector productivity increases every year are only a few examples of a State that has lost its way.

Why support tax increases for new spending with this record?

You're right on it, Gary. My beef is not with Eyman but politicians who don't go the distance in eliminating waste, political hiring, duplication, and just plain odious programs.

Politicians who vilify Eyman but every year in Olympia manage to quash the comprehensive performance audits bill advocated by State Auditor Brian Sonntag.

Politicians who - for fear of Eyman and the voters who (often) rightfully support his initiatives - have no big ideas about the future, and demonstrate no leadership.

Our outgoing Gov., Gary Locke is a stellar fellow as a human being, but as a Gov. was essentially a dismal failure, due to his lack of nerve. We need our own Arnold, and damn the fusty NW introverts and eggheads who would posit otherwise.

Cool, yes, but I'm skeptical about the economics.
What does the $37 billion cover? Is that just for capital costs, or does that include operating expenses for some number of years?

I suspect the former, which means that even before anybody gets to ride the train, it will cost every man, woman and child in California $1,000 just to build the thing, which is the equivalent of 8 round trip "Fun Fares" on Southwest from Oakland to Burbank. The air journey, by the way, takes only half the time of the rail journey.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but this smells like one of the biggest and most expensive boondoggles in the nation's history. And the cost overruns haven't even happened yet. All I can say is I'm glad I'm no longer a California taxpayer.

When it comes to transportation in major urban corridors, we'll need alternatives to vehicles and airplanes over the long-term. People are already paying a much higher price than gas, car insurance and airline tickets, due to delays and aggravation. This is why something as daunting and risk prone as the SF-LA bullet train concept would likely pan out financially. The key to me is taking the long view when doing the cost benefit analysis, and including all the current costs of the status quo.

None of which is to say there shouldn't be exacting fiscal scrutiny as such a project unfolds. In fact Shark, I'd be willing to nominate you for Head Green Eyeshade.

"People are already paying a much higher price than gas, car insurance and airline tickets, due to delays and aggravation."

The last thing public transportation will ever due is reduce delays. By it's very nature fixed rail trains or fixed schedule buses only operate at certain times and go to specific locations. One has to get yourself onto a bus or train and then arrange for other transport to your final destination. A return trip requires the same juggling act. This kind of transport can hardly be sold as an efficient use of time. Time is the principle reason most people avoid mass transit of any kind.

It's inconvenient by it's very nature and lengthens any trip for 99% of all individuals. That's why HOV lanes are such a joke whether they are occupied by buses or "carpools." This privileged "right thinking" class has to use the same roads after exiting the freeway where the costs they bear in time spent commuting again are equal to those other nonbelievers.

Keep hammering away Shark.