Refusal to accept rail funds is not political; it’s good government

April 3, 2011

E-mail this article

Invalid E-mail address
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

Text size +

AS ACCUSTOMED as I am to opinion sneaking into your so-called news stories, I found that the second sentence of last Sunday’s lead front-page story was a bit much, even for the Globe (“Mass. vies for Fla.’s spurned rail funds,’’ March 27). In the face of massive deficits, Florida’s governor rejects federal funds to build a project that, even if the funds pay for all the construction (unlikely), would run operational deficits forever, and you say he did it “for political reasons’’? Yet somehow the Obama administration’s insistence on spending money that we don’t have, on trains that will lose money every day they run, to create a “signature transportation initiative’’ for his administration is not political — especially when most of the money is being sent to battleground states?

This whole thing is an attempt by the administration to buy short-term support for the next election cycle, with no consideration for what it does to our economy in the future. Rather than being a political attack against the Obama administration, as your article implies, the rejection of these funds by Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin represents a push back against the spending practices that have created so many of our current problems. We need more of that, not less, if we are ever going to climb out of the hole that we have dug.

Art Cabral
West Bridgewater