Fox & Friends off the rails on claim that stimulus money went to "save" Napa wine train
Trumpeting a report by Sen. John McCain and Sen. Tom Coburn on "wasted" stimulus funds, Fox & Friends hosts Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Peter Johnson Jr. repeatedly claimed that $54 million in stimulus money went to "save" a wine-tour train in Napa Valley, when in fact, the funds are for an Army Corps of Engineers project "designed to minimize flooding of downtown Napa," which requires the relocation of the Wine Train.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Fox & Friends hosts repeatedly claim stimulus funding went to "save" a Napa Valley wine-tour train
From the December 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: Talk about a gravy train, we're tracking your stimulus money. More than 50 million of it. Why is it being used to save some train tracks in the wine country?
[...]
CARLSON: I guess we're listening to some pigs this morning as well. Which sounds better: the music or those pigs? But the pigs remind about all the money that is being spent in pork on Capitol Hill. And, apparently, one of -- we have been covering this for you for months now -- but one of the recipients of $54 million from your taxpayer dollars is this train in Napa Valley. Apparently was damaged by floods. Needs to be fixed, and some people are scratching their heads wondering if it really needed $54 million to be fixed.
DOOCY: Fifty-four million to save the Napa Valley wine train. That is the headline from Senators McCain and Coburn, and in fact, the multimillion-dollar contract is number 11 on their list of 100 projects deemed by them to be "wasteful or just outright silly."
JOHNSON: All aboard.
DOOCY: All aboard the wine train. Here's the thing though, it's not just to save the wine train, but it's also to save the integrity of the track and, you know, because through erosion and stuff like that, if the track goes away, then the farmers get flooded and stuff like that.
JOHNSON: This issue with regard to flood control funds. So it's not as simple as it sounds, although it is to save the Napa Valley wine train.
CARLSON: To me the key is this, and you guys are going to be interviewing the public information officer out in this part of the country in Napa Valley a little later on.
JOHNSON: What should we ask him?
CARLSON: Well, I just read through his notes, and to me the whole crux of this is that he says our congressman from our area pitched to get some money for the project. We expected 10 to 20 million but we never imagined we'd get so much. Now see, that, to me, is the essence of this whole argument. It's OK, maybe, if they asked for it, well, why didn't you just give them 10 million? I mean, are our tax dollars so aplenty that we just, you know, flourish them with 54 million?
JOHNSON: We will be asking that. That is a good question.
CARLSON: I guess, I don't know.
DOOCY: This could be one of those programs that is actually shovel-ready, because it's all about fixing the land and stuff like that. Nonetheless, there is a wine train involved and millions of dollars, so we're going to talk about that.
[...]
DOOCY: And, you can call it a gravy train. California getting a lot of our money to save a wine tour train from flooding. That's right, we're tracking your stimulus money straight ahead.
In fact, the project does not fund Wine Train, but is designed to prevent "flooding of downtown Napa"
Flood-control project relocates Wine Train. The award description for the project states: "The Napa Valley Wine Train Relocation project is a flood control job designed to minimize flooding of downtown Napa, CA. The existing railroad bridge over the Napa River is at an elevation that impedes the flow of the 100 year storm event. This backs up river flows from major storms and floods homes and businesses. In addition the river has an oxbow channel which constricts the major flows further adding to the flooding of downtown." The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contracted with Suulutaaq Inc., an Alaskan firm, to complete the project. Contrary to Carlson's claim, the Wine Train is not a "recipient" of the stimulus funds.
Napa Valley Register: Officials said project "not done at the behest of or for the benefit of the Wine Train." According to a December 11 Napa Valley Register article, "The funding is part of the larger $99.5 million in stimulus funds awarded to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Napa's flood control project" and the "goal is to prevent another major flood like the one that ripped through central Napa on New Year's Eve 2005, causing an estimated $115 million in damage." The article noted that "[o]fficials have said in the past that the project is not done at the behest of or for the benefit of the Wine Train, but to maintain the only rail right of way through the valley and lift two train trestles high enough that they will not catch debris, slow fast-moving water and cause flooding downtown."
Napa County spokesman: "We're not doing anything to protect the train in any way." According to a local ABC report, Barry Martin, spokesman for the Napa Flood Protection District, stated of the project, "We're not doing anything to protect the train in any way, we're just getting the train out of the way so we can give the protection to the downtown area, the residents and businesses closest to the river." The article also quoted Congressman Mike Thompson's statement that "[t]he wine train would continue to operate with or without the flood control project, this merely allows the flood project to be completed." After Doocy, Carlson, and Johnson repeatedly claimed the money went to "save" the wine-tour train, they hosted Martin, who said it's a "flood-control project" and that it "will absolutely protect locals from flooding and absolutely not is it a waste of money." Martin also said: "Our project is different from other flood-control projects. It is land intensive. We are moving things out of the way where the floodwaters go rather than trying to deepen or straight and the river, which we have learned over time is not a very environmentally sound practice and it doesn't really work very well. So this is a new approach to flood control, we have been under construction for many years, and we've have moved many facilities, buildings, railroad tracks and bridges. It's a large project, and this is just one piece of it."
Wine Train spokesman "shocked" to hear that people think train "received $54 million in stimulus money -- which, of course, we didn't." In an open letter to McCain, Melodie Hilton, director of marketing and public relations for Napa Valley Wine Train, stated, "I was shocked to hear that people high up in Washington think that the Napa Valley Wine Train received $54 million in stimulus money -- which, of course, we didn't." Hilton further stated:
It worries me that no calls were made before we were held up to the entire American public -- a small business in Northern California -- as an enormous source of government waste.
If you had spoken with us, or even project officials, you might have asked: Why would the Napa Valley Wine Train need, or take, $54 million in taxpayer money to move a small section of rail line 33 feet? The answer is: we didn't!
So, who does? Napa County has an award-winning flood control project and design; one that was proposed, and approved by voters, many years ago. This is the project that is being funded. That design has impacted a lot of businesses. It has necessitated the movement of several rights-of-way, and at my last count four or five bridges (including the Wine Train's). The goal of this project is to protect the city of Napa from continued flooding, period, not enhance specific companies.
Wow, and I thought it was a poor investment. Sorry, I don't buy it, I think it went to save the train.
And, no-one was asking you to buy anything, nor does anyone really care what you think when it is as short-sighted as it generally is in your case.
But I don't.
According to a December 11 Napa Valley Register article, "The funding is part of the larger $99.5 million in stimulus funds awarded to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Napa's flood control project" and the "goal is to prevent another major flood like the one that ripped through central Napa on New Year's Eve 2005, causing an estimated $115 million in damage."
Another thing I might add: if you Regressives weren't so busy trying to rewrite history, you would take the time to notice that the economy has generally done better under Democrats. This is an indicator that Democrats are a littel better at recognizing good investments.
I often hear Regressives moaning about the fact that there are more millionaire Democrats in Washington than millionaire Republicans. This also ought to tell you that Democrats are better at managing money than Republicans.
Instead of clinging to your ideologies, you ought to try objectively analysing the facts. You might actually realize that Democrats have done a far better job than Republicans. The only Republican who did a decent job in office since Roosevelt was Eisenhower - and he spent a lot of money. (Of course, taxes were considerably higher back then - low taxes are another failed Republican theory.)
Again, you choose momentary comfort over investing in the future of our country - tres regressive, tres ignorant.
Do you honestly think that when you reply to a post without actually responding to IN the post that you have said anything worthwhile? And ignoring the point about Katrina is just ridiculous.
When you can't grasp the obvious, it's guaranteed you (collectively) won't be able to handle the tough stuff. This is why we need to get as many wingers out of government as possible. We can't afford you.
Otherwise, what are the odds that there will ever be a flood there again? Is it better than 1%?
What I'm saying is that your framework is odd in how you're treating the 1% number. It's cumulative, based on the idea that there will be a flood within a hundred years. So if there is a flood within a hundred years, doesn't the money go towards the prevention of damage, no matter when it would occur? What difference does it make if it happens to hit the 1% chance of this year, or the 2% chance of this year and next year, or the 3% chance of happening within the next three years, etc?
I know you have an allergy to this sort of thing, but imagine a game of Russian Roulette. Let's say there's a 90% chance that there's a bullet in the gun to begin with, just because we don't know with an absolute certainty that there will be a flood within a hundred years. The odds of getting the bullet on the first pull is 15%, I believe. Now, if five turns are taken, with no bullet, then is the last turn still a 15% chance of death? Or is it 90% at that point?
"I didn't say the percentages weren't relevant."
This is why I never quite know how to discuss anything with you. Things change so quickly.
This is a perfectly logical argument, without any name-calling or sniping whatsoever. How you feel justified in misrepresenting me for that is unknown.
Oh you mean like this "I know you have an allergy to this sort of thing"
So now, can you please make some effort to explain your logic here?
I'd love to know what the actual percentages are here. What's the expected range of effectiveness for the project, and what are the odds of a major flood within that time period? That would be a relevant number to have at hand here, as opposed to 1%. If it's not a wise use of money, then make a legitimate case to that end.
Also note that I accounted for what you're saying in my hypothetical earlier:
It's still cumulative. When you look at longer periods of time, the odds go up, even if they never reach 100%.
"Continued" i.e. annual, seasonal etc.
Get it?
The bridge is part of a larger project.
It might have been wiser for you to say "I don't agree with it. So there!!" since all of your arguments have been refuted by a careful reading of the posting and a clear idea of what the definition of 1% flood really is.
The facts, however are much more telling than his babling Let's see if he can tweeze 1% in 100 years out of this:
"The city of Napa has experienced 27 floods between 1862 and 1997, with the most damaging occurring on February 18 1996."
"Between 1961 and 1997, Napa county residents have suffered approximately $542 million in property damage from flooding. Many residential, business, and industrial buildings are located along the Napa River within the city limits. "
" The 14 most recent serious floods in the city of Napa occurred in 1942, 1943, 1955, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1973, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997."
Source: http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~emse232/january2004mitigation1.html
Damn those pesky details.
Oh pray tell, what would be a better use for these funds? In case it hasn't occurred to you, Napa Valley is a major agricultural center, which is why damage from flooding is such a huge issue.
Yeah, who needs the US wine industry anyway? It's not like it supports and employs millions of people and makes billions of dollars or anything.
Go to Google, and search for
You'll see the the Dept of Commerce, the Dept of Energy, the US Coast Guard, NOAA, the EPA, and the Dept of the Interior all helped the Oil Industry.
What a tool!
So I guess no government actually went to the Gulf coast oil companies. Gues that makes you post a lie now dosent it. Who’s the Dimwit now? Fool
Your argument was shot down. Federal funding (and even federal oil) went to help Gulf Coast oil companies after Katrina. And liberals didn't protest.
EPIC FAIL
EPIC FAIL
Stick a fork in ya, you're done.
You don't want to know the truth. You spit on facts. We all know this.
EPIC FAIL
That'll end the welfare that the blue states have been paying the red states for years. There's some change I can support.
Thank you for your service. Please take advantage of the G.I. Bill when you get out.
That is, if the Republicans don't repeal it - they have never liked the GI Bill - just more government spending.
Unless, of course, the government is paying for it, in which case infrastructure would clearly be the lesser of two evils.
And now you're just falling into the same stupid that RightON tumbled into. What is it with wingnuts and their concrete thinking?
Facts are stubborn, and this project is not to prevent seasonal flooding, that is absurd. If that is the case, my neighborhood experiences seasonal flooding too and damage as a result. But because Clams talks about agriculture he feels his area is more entitled to it?
He is just naive.
It makes me an informed voice. And I didn't say I lived there. I said I worked there. You can't even get simple facts straight. And you apparently still can't wrap your mind around the fact that the project protects against small floods as well as large ones. Give up.
You aren't helping him :)
What a tool you continue to be.
This should be good...
It usually rears it head in your posts in one form or another.
It's the stupidest argument yet for this funding.
And what is this "our money" nonsense? Napa isn't part of the United States? What makes you part of a group that has control over "our money"?
This is hilarious, and further reveals that you have no clue how any of this works. You think that I somehow stand to get money from this project? Do you think that I don't pay taxes too? I really don't understand your demented thinking here.
You really shouldn't have admitted that earlier because all your subsequent opinions are now tainted, sorry. It's too late now.
Explain that.
Do you not understand the purpose of the brackets? The meaning wasn't changed. You're implication is that I don't pay taxes. You really need to think your arguments through before posting.
I pay taxes, so it's my money too. And I don't stand to get my hands on any of it.
Now do some homework. Take a look at how much of the federal income tax paid every year comes from California. If we actually gave them back their fair share, Alaska wouldn't be getting much of anything. Grow up and stop whining about things you have no clue about.
Massive Fail!
He wasn't giving his opinions. He was giving facts.
Oh yeah, that's right, it's not similar at all.
Add gullible to naive.
Events that you ignorantly claimed only took place every 100 years, when in fact they've been taking place at least once a decade. And Missouri took federal disaster relief money to repair the damages. Yet you still want to argue that state's should take care of their own messes.
These floods DID NOT HAPPEN IN THE SAME PLACE!! Pay Attention!!
The rest of the liberals here never met a spending opportunity where government money is used they didn't like or support without question.
It's like breathing.
You are absolutely clueless. Between the film and recording industries, tourism, ranching, mining, and farming, California contributes more in taxes than any state in the country. Get real and stop your snivelling.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
The argument is not, and never has been, if the funding is appropriate.
Yeah, we know, that's what you tried to turn it into! That's why I accused you, very, very accurately as it turned out, of derailing the thread!
The issue is the failure of Fox & Friends to accurately portray the issue. It isn't about saving the train. It's about the Napa Valley that has a 1% chance any year of getting a horrific flood, and how this train trestle makes that flood and others worse than they would be if it were to be relocated!
But, leave it to RightON to make it into a personal attack on Clams Casino to help derail the thread.
"How many 100-year floods did we have in the '70s? It seemed to me we had one every other Tuesday.
Fact is, any government project, pork/earmark/whatever can be spun by those pushing it for some worthiness if this or that happens. That is lobbyists' job.
The fact that a 100 year flood happened in 2005 doesn't change the odds whatsoever that another 100 year flood (or a 500 year flood, even worse) could happen tomorrow, next week or next year. That's not how the 100 year flood appellation works!
The 100-year flood is more accurately referred to as the 1% flood, since it is a flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any single year.
That doesn't mean there won't be other floods that don't equal or exceed the worst one.
The flood in 2005 caused an estimated $115 million in damage.
Do you really believe they shouldn't be taking measures to prevent $10, 20, 30, 40 million disasters simply because they don't equal the worst flood?
That's silly.
It doesn't affect the reasonableness of the Stimulus spending.
When deciding on a preventative expense you balance the odds of catastrophe and the potential loss from catastrophe and the cost of preventing and/or reducing the impact of catastrophe. If you don't know the potential damage from the flood it's foolish to dismiss the cost as too expensive. The flooding is going to come. It could be a century and a half away. It could happen three times in the next century. What would be the cost if it hit twice in a decade, a not too improbable possibility? What cost of damage might make the expense of this project worth it?
That doesn't mean there won't be other floods that don't equal or exceed the worst one.
The flood in 2005 caused an estimated $115 million in damage.
Do you really believe they shouldn't be taking measures to prevent $10, 20, 30, 40 million disasters simply because they don't equal the worst flood?
That's silly.
Perhaps you should read more about the 100 year storm.
So now you are trying to say this preventative method is for annual flooding? Gee, that's not what the experts say, but nice way to make this project instantly viable and move the goalposts into another stratosphere.
But since you live there I guess you know best. ok.
"Especially in the valley"? What do you think we're talking about here? It's all in the valley. Again, look at a map.
It's true annual flooding may not equal or exceedthe 2005 flood which caused $115 million in damage but its silly to not plan for floods that cause less than $115 million of damages.
Maybe you can cite a few experts who say flooding isn't a big problem in Napa when its not a 1% event.
Also, if this is the case why the stimulus money?
There's a big difference between a project being approved and a project being funded as your emphasis points out.
Perhaps localities in CA have no money? Perhaps they have no money because Prop 13 prevents property taxes from ever being raised on a home that isn't sold.
The Fox report was clearly, obviously, demonstrably and provably false.
Just keep moving those goalposts, though. Make Uncle Ruppert happy in his pants.
Not all approved projects have all the funding secured as soon as they are approved, you know. Or maybe you don't know. If you don't know that, then you shouldn't be trying to educate those of us who do understand simple concepts like that.
As a USA Today article from back in March of this year explains, there were many approved projects that didn't have funding, projects which were ready to go except there was no money to pay for them.
Re-read my post, and then stick a fork in ya - you're done.
Lots of projects being funded by the Stimulus package were jobs planned for and already approved that just didn't have local, state or federal funding already allocated.
Not all approved projects have all the funding secured as soon as they are approved, you know. Or maybe you don't know. If you don't know that, then you shouldn't be trying to educate those of us who do understand simple concepts like that.
As a USA Today article from back in March of this year explains, there were many approved projects that didn't have funding, projects which were ready to go except there was no money to pay for them.
From his point of view, he's arguing the right thing - the 'right thing' is anything that distracts from the topic at hand.
He says he "thinks" it went to save the train, despite the fact that 100% of the facts dispute that.
The train would keep running in any case. The train doesn't need the train trestle to be moved in order to continue running! The city of Napa needs the trestle moved so that the city doesn't get flooded again.
Top that off with YOUR posts that clearly are intended to derail threads, versus my post that was about the host of the show from which the cropped quote came from, and you don't have a leg to stand on.
How unique for you - NOT. Your arguments virtually never have any support!
You derailed this thread with lots of posts about the appropriateness of the funding, when the post was about the inaccurate framing of the discussion by FoxNews personalities. On the other hand, I fully addressed the topic on that other thread. You haven't once addressed the topic on this thread.
You fool lots of people with your derailing troll posts, but not me, and that tees you off. Too bad, so sad.
So let's really torture him and post these facts about it. What a dunce he is, and please, please, stop feeding the troll posts!
In total, the relocation of Wine Train tracks will cost $65 million in federal money, including the $54 million stimulus award. The funding is part of the larger $99.5 million in stimulus funds awarded to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Napa’s flood control project.
The $65 million award will allow the Corps to build a replacement and elevate the existing rail bridge over the Napa River, and build a new bridge over the planned bypass channel that will divert water away from the Oxbow and Soscol Avenue’s Auto Row in case of a major flood. Streets in the area, as well as underground utilities, will be raised. A flood wall will be built at the Napa Wine Train station.
The goal is to prevent another major flood like the one that ripped through central Napa on New Year’s Eve 2005, causing an estimated $115 million in damage.
“In the past, floods in that area have taken human life, destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of personal property, disturbed commerce, disrupted the lives of many, many people, and caused local governments to dip into funds,” said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena.
Local officials said stimulus money will allow the Corps to complete the project within the next two years, rather than the decade it might have taken without it.
Officials have said in the past that the project is not done at the behest of or for the benefit of the Wine Train, but to maintain the only rail right of way through the valley and lift two train trestles high enough that they will not catch debris or slow fast-moving water that would cause flooding downtown.
City and county officials familiar with the Napa flood project argue McCain and Coburn are twisting the facts to use as political fodder.
“The McCain report completely mischaracterizes what’s happening,” Martin said, stating the report makes it sound like the money is going to the Wine Train and not to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
“It is just an unbelievable lack of understanding,” he said. “And if it’s not a lack of understanding, it’s a deliberate deception to try to make the stimulus look bad. … These guys are just trying to score political points by coming up with this report, and they decided to point the finger at something they don’t really know anything about.”
Thompson, a strong advocate for the flood project in Congress, agreed that the report shows “a complete lack of understanding as to the importance of this project in our community.”
“It was just a shoot-from-the-hip, reckless comment that was made in regard to a project that is going to save taxpayers a lot of money and save lives and save personal property,” Thompson said. “This was not about trying to deal with good public policy, or trying to figure out how to succeed in stopping us from going into a depression, or how to succeed in getting the economy back on its feet,” he said, “This was just politics at its worst.”
Thompson added that the project, for which local voters agreed to tax themselves a decade ago, is largely viewed as a model effort by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The injection of "Wine Train" is a red herring.
Also, "100 year flood zone map" is an estimate based upon past events. Past results are no indication of future performance.