Regarding the Aug. 17 article "Amtrak, bus plan struck down":

The lead paragraph is wrong in flatly stating that, "Michigan officials cannot enforce a proposal to divide state money equally between Amtrak and competing bus lines because the amendment is unconstitutional." The article states the authority for this assertion is "the State Budget Office concluded" as much.

Just because the Budget Office, and no doubt its attorney, opine the amendment is unconstitutional does not make it so. Only a court can rule conclusively on the constitutionality of legislation.

The reality of the Amtrak issue is not constitutional, it is political. The political issue is subsidizing notoriously inefficient Amtrak with taxpayer money to the detriment of competing private sector bus lines that largely service people who cannot afford the higher Amtrak fares. The budget director should not hide behind a question of constitutionality.

But that's the extent of Johnson's solid ground. She steps in quicksand when she takes on the political issues of "notoriously inefficient" Amtrak. First, and most obviously, bus companies are subsidized too. The same taxpayer money that the Senator laments Amtrak receiving pays for roads, highways, and countless bus-terminal facilities. And if they can sustain themselves with fares cheaper than Amtrak's--which aren't particularly high--they are obviously in no need of additional subsidy.

Second, and most importantly, the State is obliged to act in the best interests of its people and economy when distributing tax money, not in the interest of corporate competition. Amtrak provides an economic service that wouldn't exist without subsidy. This service has been deemed worthy of that subsidy for decades. If Sen. Johnson wants to kill it, she should do so by arguing against the subsidy alone, not through dubious claims unfair competition.