Every industrialized, competitive country in the world, except the United States, has high-speed rail. Those 30-plus lines with 30 more planned were built by governments creating jobs, increasing mobility and fighting climate change. China, in less than 10 years, boasts more than 5,000 miles of 225 mph electrically powered trains, investing some $88 billion last year alone. Even Brazil, Morocco and Vietnam have begun systems.

Can't the richest nation in the world afford high-speed rail? American Public Transportation Association-sponsored research shows high-speed rail creates more state and federal taxes revenues during the project's 50-plus-year useful life than the construction costs. Those projections don't include added franchise fees and corporate, sales and property taxes.

Indeed, the citizens are ahead of the politicians. The January independent Harris poll shows that 62 percent support federal funding for President Obama's national high-speed rail legacy. Californians polled higher, with 76 percent favoring. President Franklin D. Roosevelt "built" the nation out of the depression by investing in roads, parks and other public works. So history declares President Obama right in demanding $8 billion for high-speed rail in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

But the Republican majority in the House canceled an additional $2.5 billion not yet budgeted for 2011, and another $400 million in unspent 2010 funds. That is illogical when trying to create employment and tax revenue.

Yes, three newly elected governors returned their high-speed rail funds. Yet, 24 governors, of whom 11 are Republicans, then pursued those returned funds for their own states' systems. Remarkably, that included one of the three governors who originally returned funds.

A project that potentially creates more than 21,000 U.S. jobs for every $1 billion invested, builds sustainable mobility using electricity instead of imported petroleum, promotes international competitiveness, and fights climate change has too many universal advantages to be politicized.

Almost all international high-speed rail systems create a profit after operating costs. California's system is projected to do so too. Proposition 1A, approved by California voters in 2008, provides $9 billion for high-speed rail and requires a public-private partnership investment. If private bidders don't see profits, then there will be no bids, no project, and no debt. California taxpayers are protected.

California leads the nation with $3.5 billion in federal funds matched with $2.8 billion from Proposition 1A. That $6.3-plus billion should create more than 130,000 jobs in an area with nearly 30 percent unemployment rate in the construction industry. More than 1,100 private contractors declared interest in bidding on the first U.S. high-speed rail project: the leg between Bakersfield to north of Fresno. Our challenge is to promote an extension under Pacheco Pass via San Jose to San Francisco's Transbay Terminal.

So are all the other industrial countries wrong and only the United States right? Or have we just lost the national courage to compete?

In the early 1930s, the Golden Gate Bridge had powerful opponents, no funding, and more than 2,300 lawsuits. Today it is the icon of Northern California. Our children will honor our foresight and courage in delivering their iconic high-speed rail system for the 21st century.