Expect to be hearing that catchy new canard a lot, not to mention the “Las Vegas to Disneyland” little white lie that Gov. Opie Jindal (R-LA) trotted out in his Tuesday-night audition for the 2012 presidential nomination. “Vegas to Disneyland” is, of course, a linguistic formation sure to stoke the ire of the “family values” crowd far more than the fiscal-restraint one. A jab that might possess some heft were it coming from Vegas-friendly Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) rings hollow when spouted by politicians who are anti-gambling cranks opportunistically masquerading as fiscal conservatives.
Then there was the Tennessee congresswoman whose official Web site informed constituents that the train would run from “Los [sic] Vegas to Las [sic] Angeles.” Your tax dollers [sic] at work, folks. Perhaps federally funded literacy programs should start with remedial classes at the Capitol.
As for “Sin City Express,” if the feasibility study goes well and if the Anaheim-to-LV route is approved and if it can be financed (a whole lotta “ifs”), we ought to call the mag-lev train precisely that, just to make its detractors suck on it. For that matter, why is the need for high-speed rail of any sort open to debate? Do we pride ourselves on taking a back seat to other industrialized nations?
In the meantime, deficit hawks and pietists bicker amongst themselves. And Howard Stutz makes a trenchant observation: The fortunes of Lousiana — where Harrah’s Entertainment and Boyd Gaming are major employers — are tied to those of Las Vegas. Maybe Jindal would like to take a long, slow ride on Amtrak and think it over.
“Singapore City Express”: No cost overruns at Sands Marina Bay, quoth Sheldon Adelson. Unfortunately, his “no significant changes” comment begs the question of whether the $5.4 billion figure represents the actual budget or whether the tab is still in the neighborhood of $3.2 billion. If it’s the latter, perhaps Sands still can make this mega-gambit pencil out.
No harm, no foul: At first blush, Harrah’s Entertainment has lined up strong arguments for dismissal of a bondholder lawsuit. The only non-starter would be appear to be Argument #1 — the assertion that bondholders have suffered no harm — which, at minimum, “assumes facts not in evidence,” as the saying goes. When debt is being swapped out at a 40% writeoff, somebody’s taking an uncomfortably close shave, to say the least.
