We begin our roundup with
Eugene Robinson who surveys the GOP primary field:
Maybe a thoroughbred will emerge from the coming debates, assuming the party finds a way to cram all the candidates onto the same stage. So far, however, most of the GOP field seems to be in a contest to make the likely Democratic nominee look better. Jeb Bush has been the biggest disappointment. It’s one thing to be rusty after spending a few years away from politics — indeed, Clinton’s handling of her e-mail controversy was less than balletic. But Bush shows no sign of having given more than a passing thought to the central challenge he faces in reaching the White House: the fact that his brother got there first and made a mess of things.
Taegan Goddard at The Week examines Bush's pre-announcement maneuverings :
Bush is taking the time before his formal announcement to build a super PAC that Politico says "would be unprecedented in its size and scope." The group, called Right to Rise, is expected to raise more than $100 million by the end of this month, and its budget may dwarf that of Bush's eventual official campaign.
Presidential campaigns have strict limits on how much money they can raise from individual donors. A super PAC, on the other hand, can raise nearly unlimited amounts of money from deep-pocketed donors. The catch is that a super PAC is not allowed to coordinate its actions with any political campaign. However, as long as Bush is not an official candidate, that catch may not apply. The thinking goes like this: He can help build a massive war chest for his super PAC, coordinate very closely with Right to Rise and lay out any strategy he wants, and then cut off contact and watch from afar as the super PAC acts on his behalf once he's officially in the race. It's deceptively simple, kind of brilliant, and "potentially illegal."
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
Jay Bookman writes about GOP attacks on infrastructure spending:
Amtrak in particular, and rail transit in general, have long been targets of Republican politicians. The line of attack is generally that rail and transit service ought to be able to pay for itself and even be privatized and run at a profit. If it can’t be run at a profit, it shouldn’t exist, the theory goes, even though no major passenger rail system in the world is run at a profit.
And let’s be honest: The whole “pay for itself” line of argument is just cover for what is really a cultural and even tribal distaste for rail. Rail is perceived by some as urban, vaguely leftist and even foreign. While the automobile is individualistic — and if you have any doubt, look around you in rush-hour traffic — rail is deemed socialistic and thus unAmerican. It’s not a very rational basis on which to make transportation policy, but to deny the sentiment’s existence and power is to deny reality.
Bloomberg's editors also look at upgrading our rail system:
Politics aside, the sooner this system can be put in place across the entire Northeast Corridor, the better.
In the longer term, the goal should be to move U.S. passenger rail toward full automation. Technology exists to safely operate trains with little or no human intervention: Around the world, more than 30 urban metro systems do so. It would of course be more difficult for a major national railroad system. And the idea enrages unions and unsettles many passengers. But as more and more of everyday life is automated, the public should grow more comfortable with the idea -- especially if preventable disasters like this one continue.
On a final note,
Ryan Cooper at The Week writes a piece on climate change policy:
As the 2016 presidential election clanks into gear, it's a good time to assess the state of climate change politics in the United States.
In short: Things are not so good. Democrats are largely stuck in an ineffective holding pattern, implementing reasonable reforms with one hand and handing victories to oil companies with the other. Meanwhile, conservatives are still effectively denying the problem exists. Though the movement against climate change is making strides, there is a long ways to go yet.
Despite the continuing frustration of climate politics, the empirical realities of tide and temperature wait for no one. So far, 2015 is on pace to break 2014's record for the hottest year since at least 1880, when detailed measurements began. El Niño is happening, and predicted to continue for the rest of the year, which tends to dump a lot of ocean-trapped heat into the atmosphere. That means 2015 may beat that record by a large amount.