How the President’s Stimulus Plan for High-Speed Rail (HSR) will not work
The president’s HSR plan will spend billions to offer a rail service to a small percentage of the travelers. Importantly, the federal cannot afford this extravagant program, and it will cost taxpayers a lot of money. Thus, the plan will not work as previously expected. The federal has a large budget deficit of about 1.4 trillion (Utt, 2011). Thus, a massive expenditure on the HRS will heighten the deficit more. American citizens have realize that the plan will cost more compared to the perceived benefits. Although there seems to be small opposition on the HRS, it is clear that some influential politicians are unwilling to support the plan. Ohio rejected the federal funding to initiate the HRS construction. California got a large share of the initial funding on the proposed HRS. However, private investors in California seem reluctant to invest in the plan which limits the possibilities of achieving the HRS. Investigators in California hold that the project may never work in California. It is estimated that the cost of laying the structure has increased to about $63 billion (Utt, 2011).
Another factor is that the proposed HRS will pass through a highly populated area. There may not be enough space to set up the stations and the rails. The construction may also result in environmental degradation and disturbances. Evidently, the same plan has failed in other places. According to Lambro (2010), the proposed HSR will only serve a small fraction of the urban population. America can learn from other countries such as Asia on the expenses involved in constructing such a project. Even operating the HSR is very expensive and it may cost taxpayers additional costs in the future. Conclusively, the president’s HSR plan will not work since it is very expensive, some states have pulled off, investors are not willing to adopt it and the system may collapse soon.
Problems in Jurisdiction of governments in U.S.
The federal, local and state governments varying authority and they thus experience different issues. Nevertheless, these authorities still face similar problems in their jurisdiction.
They all face a challenge of funding the amenities that they have control over. Importantly, the government loan deficit impacts all organs of leadership in the country. Hence, the federal financial crises are duplicated in the states and local governments. Another issue that they face in common is the threat of lawsuits. These levels of governance can all be sued in law courts by independent complaints or human rights watch groups. Budgeting issues also cut across these levels of governance. Notably, the federal should allocate money to fund development projects around the country. Likewise, the state and local government should also allocate funds in their budgets to support their development projects. Also, these governments have to deal with offenders who commit crimes within their jurisdiction.
The states and local governments face issues of financial imbalance (News Staff, 2016). The federal government does not face this challenge. The states governments have this problem since their funds are allocated by the federal government. Budget shortfalls are also a major challenge to the local governments. Since the state governments have a more infrastructure under their jurisdiction, they deal with more offenders compared to the federal government. The states courts have broader jurisdiction compared to the federal courts (Federal, n. d.). Evidently, the state and local governments have more challenges in governance than the federal government since they deal with citizens directly.
NAFTA is an unsuitable business venture
The supporters of NAFTA hold that the agreement has benefited the United States significantly. However, NAFTA is an unsuitable business venture that should either be cancelled or changed to a different state. Since its launch, NAFTA has impacted the U.S. economy adversely. The trade agreement has results in trade deficits with Mexico. Also, it has increased income inequality among the American citizens. A great negative effect of the trade is the loss of jobs in the U.S. (Francis, 1997). The supports of this trade agreement make false promises to the citizens. For instance, they note that more agreement translates into higher wages for the working population. Nevertheless, the proponents have a wrong interpretation of the actual impacts of this agreement on economic development. Ideally, trade agreements lead to the creation of job as well as loss of employment. High exports result in the creation of employment, but high imports create jobs abroad.
Proponents of this trade agreement cite the advantages of exports but do not comment on the impacts of the increased imports. Shortly after its launch, NAFTA led to an increase in the number of jobs in the U.S. However, in the early 2000 unemployment began to rise and by October 2003 the U.S. industries had dropped about 2.4 employees (Scott, 2013). NAFTA also impacted the FDI adversely. Notably, the agreement opened an avenue for U.S. based companies to invest in other countries such as Canada. These countries enjoy the benefits of FDI as the U.S. economy continuous to suffer in deficits. U.S. companies tend to invest in Mexico due to the presence of cheap labor and availability of government incentives. Hence, the NAFTA should be abolished or morphed.
How LCC’s can remain competitive
The LCC’s airlines have experienced an enormous growth for over the last few decades. For instance, Southwest airline has been recording a continuous growth both in size and profits (Muduli, A., & Kaura, 2011). However, the current economic recession poses a huge threat to the existence and growth of the LCC. The airlines that offer low-cost flights should devise ways to remain competitive even with the prevailing economic recession. First, these companies require creative leaders who have a clear vision. The leaders should be in a position to interpret the market forces and set achievable objectives. A merger or acquisition is another creative way for these airlines to remain competitive. Ideally, when two companies merge they gain a competitive advantage since they control significant infrastructure. Acquisition also expands a company’s presence and allows it to do business better since it gets a significant market share. For instance, when an airline acquires its competitor, it gets more crafts, staff, and routes. Thus, it can serve a large market and operate at low costs.
Additionally, the airlines should aim at offering cost effective flight as well as profit maximization. The airlines should derive ways of ensuring they remaining profitable while providing low-cost flights. Further, customer service is vital in gaining competitive advantage in the current economic recession. The airlines should ensure to offer high-quality services to passengers. This aspect promotes customer satisfaction and loyalty (Sarker, Hossan, & Zaman, 2012). Regional consolidation is also essential in remaining competitive today. Launching flights to new destinations around the U.S. and even outside the country will ensure continued success. Airlines should consider increasing their flights to countries like Canada and Mexico. Low-cost airlines should also invest on hiring top talents. Staff training is also necessary for these airlines to attract more passengers. Finally, the state of the crafts determines if a passenger will use the airline during their next flight. Notably, some airlines have invested on refurbishing their crafts to include lavish seats and amenities.
References
News Staff. (2016, January 1). 2016’s top legislative issues to watch. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from <http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-2016-legislative-issues-to-watch.html>
Scott, R. E. (2013). The high price of “free” trade: NAFTA’s failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/
Federal vs. State courts - key differences. (n. d.). Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/federal-vs-state-courts-key-differences.html
Francis, D. R. (1997, March 24). How NAFTA impacts flow of US jobs south of border. (Cover story). Christian Science Monitor. p. 1.
Lambro, D. (2010). Obama Pushes Ridiculously Expensive Train Scheme. (Cover story). Human Events, 66(7), 1-11.
Muduli, A., & Kaura, V. (2011). Southwest Airlines Success: A Case Study Analysis. BVIMR Management Edge, 4(2), 115-118.
Sarker, M. A. R., Hossan, C. G., & Zaman, L. (2012). Sustainability and Growth of Low Cost Airlines: An Industry Analysis in Global Perspective. American Journal of Management, 1(3), 162–171.
Utt, R. D. (2011, February 11). Time to end Obama’s costly high-speed rail program. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/time-to-end-obamas-costly-high-speed-rail-program
