President Barack Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood released a

blueprint for a new national network of high-speed passenger rail lines Thursday, saying such an investment is necessary to reduce traffic congestion, cut dependence on foreign oil and improve the environment.

The president's plan identifies 10 potential high-speed intercity corridors for federal funding, including California, the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, the Southeast, the Gulf Coast, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York and New England.

It also highlights potential improvements in the heavily traveled Northeast Corridor running from Washington to Boston, Massachusetts.

The economic stimulus package included about $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, and Obama is seeking an additional $1 billion each year for high-speed rail in the next five federal budgets.

Matthew Yglesias would like to see the federal investment concentrated in the east coast corridors, where we know there is already demand for train service. But what do you expect from a New Yorker who went to college in Massachusetts and has lived in New York City or Washington ever since?

They say where you stand depends on where you sit, and from where I'm sitting, building high-speed rail linking major midwestern cities to Chicago seems like a worthwhile investment too. In addition to the economic benefits, energy usage and greenhouse-gas emissions would decline if large numbers of people started taking the train to Chicago instead of driving or flying from the cities in this corridor.

Yesterday eight Midwestern governors signed a letter to Secretary LaHood asking him to support the "Midwest Regional Rail Initiative," which

focuses on upgrading three existing routes by 2014 -- one between Chicago and St. Louis, one between Chicago and Madison, Wis., via Milwaukee and one between Chicago and Pontiac, Mich., through Detroit.

It's important to note that federal investment in passenger rail could affect cities that are not currently on any of the high-speed rail maps. In fact, the first round of stimulus money allocated to rail will

go to upgrading and increasing speeds on existing lines where people could quickly be put to work. The second and third phases would focus on high-speed rail planning and money to jump-start corridors not yet ready for construction. The Transportation Department is to announce first-round grants before the end of the summer.

Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01), who has pushed hard for funding passenger rail links to Iowa, issued a statement today praising Obama's rail initiative, adding that "the Chicago to Quad Cities and Chicago to Dubuque lines are shovel-ready rail projects that will create jobs and economic growth immediately." No doubt many other members of Congress will push projects in their own districts.

Competition for the stimulus rail funding will be fierce, but I wouldn't be surprised if LaHood's Illinois roots improved prospects for funding routes to Chicago.

There's more...

Paul Rosenberg has an outstanding post up at Open Left on a report by Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com. Zandi analyzed different types of tax cuts and government spending in terms of "fiscal stimulus bang for the buck."

Click here to view the chart showing his conclusions. Various types of government spending all delivered much more stimulus to the economy than even the most effective tax cuts.

Temporary increases in food stamps carried the most "bang for the buck," $1.73 for every federal dollar spent. That's because food stamp money goes into the hands of people who will spend it right away. Not far behind was extending unemployment benefits (which also helps people likely to spend money quickly) and government spending on infrastructure (which creates jobs).

Zandi found that even the government spending that delivered the least bang for the buck, general aid to state governments, still generated $1.38 for every federal dollar spent.

On the other hand, most tax cuts generated far below $1 for the economy for every dollar they cost the federal government. That's particularly true for the tax cuts Republicans tend to favor, which mainly benefit high-income Americans or businesses. These generate between 25 and 50 cents for the economy for every dollar they cost the federal government.

By far the best tax cut for stimulating the  economy, according to Zandi, was a payroll tax holiday, which generates $1.28 for every dollar it costs. However, a payroll tax holiday still ranked significantly below various types of spending in terms of "bang for the buck."

Rosenberg created a second chart combining Zandi's figures with job creation numbers from the Center for Economic Policy and Research. It shows that millions more jobs would be created by $850 billion in spending compared to $850 billion in tax cuts.

Not only does government spending create more jobs and stimulate more consumer spending, it can also accomplish tasks that benefit the community as a whole. For instance, everyone who uses a bridge benefits from maintenance that prevents that bridge from collapsing. Thousands of travelers could take advantage of improved passenger rail service, which would also reduce greenhouse-gas emissions compared to driving or flying. For those reasons, I agree with the state legislators from the midwest who have advocated more rail funding in the stimulus bill.

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley derides the stimulus spending as "porkulus," but yesterday the Iowa Environmental Council made the case for another infrastructure program that would have huge collateral benefits: upgrading substandard sewage and drinking water systems.

President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress need to do a better job explaining that the spending in the stimulus bill would directly boost the economy much more than tax cuts.

On a related note, I recommend reading Theda Skocpol's comment published today at Talking Points Memo.

There's more...

Many a bad bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives with the votes of Republicans and Democratic "Blue Dogs." These representatives call themselves "moderates" or "centrists," and you often find them voting with corporate interests, against the majority of the House Democratic caucus, when the chips are down.

This Washington Post article about the upcoming debate over an economic stimulus bill cites Representative Baron Hill of Indiana as "incoming co-chairman of the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of 51 fiscally conservative House Democrats."

Hill wants the economic stimulus money to go toward road and bridge construction, whereas others would like to see more of the money spent on "green jobs" and infrastructure projects that are more environmentally friendly than building new roads. Progressives would like to spend the transportation money on fixing our existing roads and bridges while expanding public transit and rail. (Friends of the Earth has launched a campaign to "keep the economic stimulus clean." Click here for more details about the economic and environmental consequences of letting new road construction dominate the stimulus bill.)

Getting back to the title of this diary, Matt Stoller read that Washington Post piece about debates over the stimulus and was intrigued to learn that Hill claims 51 members for the Blue Dog Coalition:

Last session, there were 49 Blue Dogs, and during the election season the caucus continually bragged about how they would add a substantial number of new members in 2009.  Still, their PAC didn't give to very many Democratic candidates, two Blue Dogs lost reelection, and a bunch of their candidate prospects lost.  If it's true that the Blue Dogs have only increased their number by 2, and I'm not sure it is, then they really are far weaker in the House than they were from 2006-2008.  There are 257 Democrats in the next Congress and 178 Republicans.  While the Blue Dogs are still a swing bloc, they only have 11 votes to give.  That's not very many, considering that this number assumes all Republicans always vote with the Blue Dogs.  If Republicans split off from their caucus on certain votes, even small numbers of Republicans, then Blue Dog priorities are far less likely to matter overall.

Once the new House convenes, it will be interesting to see how the Blue Dogs compare in number to the Progressive Caucus, which had 71 members in the last Congress. My hunch is that the Progressive Caucus will add a lot more new members than the Blue Dogs.

After the new year I'll try to find out how many members Bruce Braley (IA-01) was able to recruit to the Populist Caucus he is forming.

Whether or not Blue Dog power declines in the House, it may be on the rise in the Senate. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana is setting up a Blue Dog caucus in the upper chamber. Although Senate Majority leader Harry Reid's spokesman claims Reid is "upbeat" about Bayh's plans, it's likely that the Senate Blue Dogs will collude with Republicans to obstruct Barack Obama's agenda.

Matthew Yglesias advanced a very plausible hypothesis about Bayh's move:

With Republicans out of power, the GOP can't really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work. It was a good racket for the House Blue Dogs in 2007-2008 and there's no reason it couldn't work for Senate analogues over the next couple of years.

Let's hope the memory of the 1994 Republican landslide will induce conservative Democrats not to block most of Obama's agenda. The Democrats who ran Congress in 1993 and 1994 wanted to show Bill Clinton who was boss, but the effect was to make Democrats look incompetent, depressing Democratic base turnout in 1994 and turning swing voters toward the Republicans.

On the other hand, I would not underestimate the Blue Dogs' willingness to do what big money wants, whether or not it's good for the Democratic Party.

Share any relevant thoughts in the comments.

There's more...

Over Thanksgiving my family (all Barack Obama voters in the general) were talking about what we'd like to see him do as president. One of my biggest concerns about Obama has always been that he would compromise too much in the name of bipartisanship and not seize the opportunity to get groundbreaking legislation through Congress. I've also worried that he would water down good policies that threaten to significantly bring down his approval rating.

From my perspective, Bill Clinton's presidency was not very successful for a lot of reasons. Some of them were his fault: he put the wrong people in charge of certain jobs, and he picked the wrong battles and listened too much to Wall Street advisers when it came to policy.

Some things were not Clinton's fault: the Democrats who ran Congress in 1993 and 1994 were not always interested in working with him, and the leaders of the Republican-controlled Congress were more interested in destroying his presidency than anything else.

After getting burned in the 1994 elections, Clinton hired Dick Morris as a political adviser and moved to the right in order to get re-elected. He served a full two terms, but he didn't leave a mark on this country. His greatest achievement, balancing the budget, was undone quickly by his successor. Many smaller successes on environmental and social policies were also reversed by George Bush's administration.

Clinton approved a bunch of good presidential directives, especially on the environment, during his last 60 days in office. Doing them years earlier would not only have been good policy, it also would have prevented Ralph Nader from gaining so much traction in 2000.

Clinton left some very big problems unaddressed, like global warming and our reliance on foreign oil, because the obvious solutions to these problems would have been unpopular.

Compare Clinton's legacy to that of Lyndon Johnson. Although Johnson made terrible mistakes in Vietnam (continuing and compounding mistakes made by John F. Kennedy), he enacted a domestic agenda that changed this country forever. Some of Johnson's achievements were popular (Medicare), while others cost the Democrats politically in many states (the Civil Rights Act). But Johnson did not shy away from big change on civil rights because of the political cost.

I understand that no president will ever do everything I'd like to see done. I'd be satisfied if Obama enacted a groundbreaking, lasting improvement in one or two big areas, like health care or global warming. The right policies often have powerful enemies. I would rather see Obama get good laws passed to address a couple of big problems, even if doing so costs him the 2012 election.

My fear is that in Obama will end up like Bill Clinton--a two-term president who didn't achieve anything that will continue to affect Americans' lives four or five decades down the road.

If Obama only goes to the mat to accomplish one or two big things, what should they be? Keeping his promise to end the war in Iraq? Getting universal health care through Congress? Taking real steps to address climate change? Enacting a huge public-works program to deal with unemployment? Building high-speed rail connecting major American cities?

Would you be satisfied with progress in one or two areas, even if it meant that Obama was not re-elected in 2012?

Yes, I understand that taking some step toward solving one or more of these problems would be popular, but real progress might require some provisions that are unpopular. That's what I'm talking about--policies that go against powerful interests and do more than convey the appearance of solving a problem.

There's more...

A Siegel wants aggressive action to green our country's school buildings, which is a "win-win-win-win strategy" because it would:

# Save money for communities and taxpayers

# Create employment

# Foster capacity for 'greening' the nation

# Reduce pollution loads

# Improve health

# Improve student performance / achievement

Click here to read A Siegel's whole piece--there's a lot in there.

Picking up on Vice President-elect Joe Biden's speech to the National Governors Association, in which he advocated greater investment in rail transit, BruceMcF wants a comprehensive rail electrification program. Click the link to read more, because BruceMcF is one of the most knowledgeable transportation bloggers around.

Neil Hamilton, director of the Agricultural Law Center at Drake University, wants Barack Obama to establish

a New Farmer Corps and set a 10-year goal of establishing one-half million new farms in the United States.

The New Farmer Corps would link his advocacy for public service with an initiative to plant the next generation of America's farm families. The program would assist current owners to transfer land and offer new farmers training, capital and markets to make their farms thrive. It would encourage states and counties to plan for supporting new farmers. [...]

The New Farmer Corps would build on existing efforts, such as Iowa's voluntary land-link program, which matches aging farmers with young families seeking a start. It would harness loans offered by USDA and Farm Credit banks, but supplement them with benefits new farmers could earn by caring for the land, conserving energy and producing healthy food. Congress could authorize education, training and health benefits to families investing their sweat, labor and dreams on rural and urban farms.

America has no shortage of people eager to put their hands in the soil to feed us. Thousands of potential new farmers exist - college students laboring on urban farms, farm kids hoping to continue the family tradition, and immigrants and refugees who brought their agrarian legacy to America. What we lack is a coordinated, creative national effort.

The New Farmer Corps could succeed by supplementing current efforts with new funds and tax incentives, such as Iowa's tax break for owners who make land available to new farmers rather than holding it until death. The New Farmer Corps could offer special training and credit incentives for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, so they can join the ranks of America's farmers and continue serving, but in more pastoral and nurturing ways.

Speaking of agriculture, jgoodman wants better organic standards for livestock production.

TomP wants Obama to keep his promise to make the Employee Free Choice Act the law of the land.

What's on your wish list for the new administration?

There's more...