True, there wasn’t a lot new in this debate today on CNBC over whether the nation really needs high-speed rail. A proponent said it’s more fuel efficient. An opponent said it’s not the government’s job to be sure “Yuppies have a train ride.”
Still, for our News Cut purposes, it provides a setting to kick the issue around, in a state that is trying to figure out how to run high-speed rail to Chicago without going through Wisconsin (which doesn’t want it). Minnesota has wrestled with whether the route should go along the Mississippi River, or divert down to Rochester, a more robust economy than anything along the state’s border. Is this all a necessary economic transportation program? Or a construction program?
But pay attention to the wonderful curmudgeon , Mark Haines, who isn’t afraid to point out when either side is presenting a weak argument: