The federal government has officially stopped throwing money at California’s long-in-the-non-making “high-speed” railroad. A scheduled-but-unspent $4 billion in federal subsidy has been canceled.
If the nonexistent project continues, money to fund non-laying down of non-tracks must come from other sources.
Non-tracks? Yes. As Victoria Taft notes, “Not one foot of track” of the not-in-progress “high-speed” railroad of the future has been glued into place.
We were just getting to track-laying phase, California Governor Newsom protests.
The going rate for snail-pace non-completion of nonexistent, not-in-progress railroads is $15 billion (says the Department of Transportation): the estimated amount of federal funding for California’s non-project to date.
The total graft bin may have been even larger than that; who knows how many nickels for the non-project have been collected from widows and orphans? But something like $15 billion is how much the federal government doled out over 16 years to ensure the railroad’s non-construction. Projected total cost of California’s infinite-prep-phase railroad: $135 billion.
Why has it taken so long — six-ish whole months — for the second Trump administration to get around to stoppering this particular gusher of monstrous waste of taxpayer dollars?
Perhaps proceeding as fast as they can, the cost-cutters and fraud-flayers take their mission one thing at a time. In Trump’s place, you might be tempted to chuck the whole five-mile-thick list of federal expenditures, throw it into the pyre and defund everything, re-starting from scratch with the courts and military. But not all temptations play out in Washington.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Krea and Firefly
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
24 replies on “Non-Billions for Non-Trains”
Indeed, the Federal government should have ended its subsidy of this boondoggle. But I note that the Democrats are thus thrown a political life-preserver. Having launched the project, they did not know how to call a halt without admitting that it was a fiasco. Now, however, they can claim that it would have worked had not President Trump and the Republicans pulled the rug out from under the project. The Democrats can hold some press conferences and perhaps effect some demonstrations, and then close it down. Of course, Democrats don’t always recognize and seize a life-preserver.
Had Gavin Newsom worked to wind-down the project when he first took office as Governor, he would now look much more like the sensible moderate that he hopes to seem. But he expected the Democratic Party not merely to hold onto control of the state of California, but to take and to hold control of the US Congress and Presidency. So, rather than alienate the grifters and technocrats, he planned on federal bail-outs to sustain the project, and least until he was out of the Governor’s office and into some other position, such as that of the President.
But we have seen Trump attempt to stop funding for other programs, such as USAID, and many in Congress insist that he can’t cancel funds that have been appropriated by Congress. The power of the purse trumps all cost savings. If the US Congress funded this project, wouldn’t it have to be the one to cut the purse strings, with new legislation?
The answer to your question turns upon how the legislation specific to each programme was written, and of course upon what judges and justices rule.
Sometimes Trump oversteps; sometimes courts overstep.
You seem to have ignored this! As usual you rarely say anything bad about Trump.
In late January 2025, former President Trump issued an executive order directing the Army Corps of Engineers to release billions of gallons of irrigation water from two Central Valley reservoirs—Lake Kaweah (Terminus Dam) and Lake Success (Schafer Dam)—claiming the release would help replenish Southern California resources during wildfires .
• The reservoirs discharged roughly 2–2.5 billion gallons over three days (Jan 30–Feb 2, 2025)
1. Water didn’t reach Los Angeles
The released water flowed into Tulare Lake Basin and recharged groundwater or soaked into dry soils—it never made it to Southern California .
2. Timing was problematic
It was released during the winter dormant season, when irrigation demand is low, yet reservoirs are meant to conserve water for summer agriculture .
3. Experts say it was a political stunt
Scientists and local officials called it a “ridiculous blunder” and “self‑destructive action purely for political showmanship,” noting the release could leave farmers short in a dry summer .
4. Local backlash followed
Farmers and irrigation districts were caught off-guard; some said the water release threatened to inundate communities, while others pointed out the timing could reduce water available for summer crops.
You ignore what is right in front of you. Heaven forbid if you criticize Trump!
Pam,
This ‘blog has repeatedly criticized Trump. With your off-topic comment, you are simply looking for a way to distract from the wretched waste associated with California’s alleged high-speed rail project.
You have misrepresented Trump’s Executive Order. It did not direct the actions that you attribute to it.
Certainly the Administration should deal with any functionaries at the Army Corps of Engineers and elsewhere who did things not conforming to that Order on a claim that those actions were pursuant to that order.
Trump dumped water in Northern California and 2.5 billion gallons were completely wasted. Reminds of the hurricane heads heading to Alabama.
Suck it up!
Paul rarely criticizes Trump!!!!!
What planet do you live on?
“Trump’s Claims
• Trump repeatedly stated he “turned on the water,” sent billions of gallons to Los Angeles, and saved firefighters by releasing Northern California water via a “giant faucet” .
“1. Released water never reached Southern California
– The Army Corps released ~2.2 billion gallons from Lake Kaweah and Lake Success in late January–early February 2025 .
– That water flowed into the Tulare Lake basin—over 100 miles north—never reaching L.A. .
2. Logistics make it impossible
– There is no direct infrastructure (the Kern River Intertie is rarely used) to route reservoir water to Los Angeles.”
Can you read?
Pam, I can read the actual Executive Order from Trump, to which I linked in my previous comment. No where does it specifically call for the release in those two reservoirs; nowhere does it call for water to be delivered anywhere that it will not support disaster response.
The Executive Order was available to you, but you instead trusted a tertiary or quaternary source. Your initial mistake was honest, but a mistake. Digging in your heels is also a mistake, but not honest.
Where is the column where Paul criticized Trump for pardoning the January 6th criminals?
What, exactly, has this question to do with California’s train boondoggle?
Paul has not posted ‘blog entries criticizing each and every action that he though very wrong on the part of Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden. Why, then, should he be expected to post a ‘blog entry on any and every action by Trump which you believe to be wrong?
Another example of Trump’s incompetence!
“Trump’s former personal lawyer Alina Habba has been replaced as interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey after serving the maximum of 120 days on the job. Trump had officially nominated her for the position, but her nomination became stalled in the Senate. Federal judges could have authorized her to remain on the job, but they instead named her top deputy, Desiree Leigh Grace, as her replacemen.”
Pam, how does the refusal of Democrats to accept the appointment of Ms Habba prove Trump’s incompetence? Did every similar obstruction by Republicans of appointments by Democratic Presidents prove the incompetence of those Democrats? Just stop flailing.
Trump appoints unqualified people. Bondi, Patel, Bongino, and others. He wants yes men. But I guess you are to stupid to admit it!
Pitiful!!!!!
Pam, your insult didn’t answer the question. Democratic refusal to accept Ms Habba didn’t show her to be unqualified; it stemmed from her willingness to prosecute a violation of law by a Democratic politician.
Hanna is unqualified!
Keep on barking at the moon as you support everything Trump does. You are such a great patriot you must have volunteered for military service. Which branch did you serve in?
Pam, as I have notes before, your claim that all who doesn’t embrace your narrative are supporters of Trump is a comparable to a claim that all who reject some religion are supporters of the Devil. You used an absurd argument about Ms Habba, and you cannot now defend it except absurdly. (Switching to different arguments, as you do below, doesn’t rescue your original argument.)
“1. Historical & Professional Background
• Alina Habba has no judicial experience and, as of mid‑2025, had never served as a prosecutor before her interim U.S. Attorney appointment in March 2025.  
• Federal judicial nominees are typically expected to have a minimum of 12–15 years of solid litigation experience and a history of impartial service. 
⸻
2. Controversial Record & Criticisms
• Critics point to her lack of prosecutorial background, saying she has no prior courtroom role in criminal cases. 
• Legal experts, including over 40 law professors, have stated she is unqualified, especially for running a U.S. Attorney’s office impartially. 
• During the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial, Habba was reprimanded multiple times by the presiding judge and threatened with contempt—raising concerns about courtroom professionalism. 
⸻
3. Senatorial & Judicial Opposition
• Both of New Jersey’s Senators—Cory Booker and Andy Kim—have publicly stated she is unfit to serve as U.S. Attorney, citing politically motivated prosecutions. While this pertains to the U.S. Attorney role, such strong opposition further undercuts any argument for judicial qualifications. “
Requirement for a Federal Judge
Alina Habba’s Experience
Extensive prosecutorial or judicial service
None – first prosecutorial role began March 2025
History of impartial decision-making
Record marked by political prosecutions and partisanship accusations
Peer recognition and ABA ratings (e.g. “Qualified”)
Not rated or endorsed by major legal institutions
Courtroom decorum under judicial oversight
Sanctions, multiple warnings, threatening remarks during a trial.
Pam, you need to think before copying-and-pasting. Habba wasn’t appointed to a judgeship, Federal or otherwise.
Habba was hired because Trump thinks she is “putty”! She must surely be a blond who died her hair brown. If she is blond. she most surely qualifies as a Trump appointee!
“Purty”
Widener Law School:
“Limitations:
• National Ranking: Widener Law is not highly ranked nationally. It tends to be in the bottom tier of U.S. News law school rankings.
• Employment Outcomes: Job placement tends to be regional and modest, with fewer graduates landing positions at large law firms or in federal clerkships.
• Student Debt: Tuition is comparable to higher-ranked schools, so return on investment may be lower unless you plan to stay local and use the alumni network.”
A school for a bimbo!
Pam, you’ve managed to copy-and-paste an evaluation of Habba as a potential judge; Trump did not appoint her as a judge. Moreover, none of the evaluation speaks to Habba’s actual abilities as a lawyer. Trump selected her because of his satisfaction with how she’d exercised those abilities when she was his lawyer.
Big news! Trump’s name is inthe Epstein files that the DOJ/FBI have. ALL of that information can be made public NOW. It is NOT grand jury information. Keep on defending someone whose best friend for 15 years was a pedophile/rapist. Do you have friends like that? I DON’T!