KERRY
what do you say?
------------------
JONATHON D. ORTIZ
First of all, let's remember that it is the Congress, and not the President, who have the final say on the budget. When the Congress votes to continue the starvation diet to Amtrak, they are really just trying to kill it slowly. Kepp underinvesting, so that things need to bew duct-taped together, and make the customers feel like they aren't getting their money's worth. Don't bother trying to really make it work, byt funding it to the point that we can get cars and equipment out that is really well fixed up - that would be sensible. Oh, Yeah, let's just forget that the Feds pick up the tab for the air traffic control system, and offer really cheap loans to the airlines while the RRs have to pay for everything out of their own pockets. Oh, th3e raods are subsidized as well - its just that the subsudy comes in the form of a well-funded Trust Fund, where communities can issue bonds while Amtrak is forbidden to do so.
ENDRANT
RANTmode SETEQ *OFF
Seriously, I don't think I have to remind the members of the Forum that the reason that Amtrak was created was becuase the private RRs saw that passenger trains, when faced with dealing with well-subsidized competition, weren't going to be profitable. Obviously, the Administration has forgetten this, or has deliberatly overlooked it, and is just using this as another set-up in order to get rid of passenger rail. I mean, they don't seriously think that the private RRs are going to relinquish their ROW to any other entity than Amtrak, especially when it has been well documented (read Fred Frailey's "The Twilight of the Great Trains") that no passenger rail anywhere is profitable. it is run as a public service, not a profit center. I've posted before, and I'll post it again: if you want passenger rail to get any funding:
1. write your member of congress and encourage them to support passenger rail
2. Write your legislator (State level)
3. purchase tickets and ride the trains, when and where possible.
[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 04-16-2004).]
A few words,,
(plays to the toon of the Jerry Springer cheer)
KERRY,KERRY,KERRY,KERRY!
------------------
JONATHON D. ORTIZ
[This message has been edited by JONATHON (edited 04-16-2004).]
KERRY
------------------
--Anton L.
pillsbury09@excite.com
AIM: pillsburyMN
One of my European collegues in a previous job said that there is a saying in Europe that "A person who is not a socialist at the age of 20 has no heart, and a person who is not a conservative by the age of 40 has no head." There is some, not complete, but some truth in this statement.
Just remember there is always the big gap between promises and reality. Taht is the thing you learn by sad experience between 20 and 40. It was Jimmy Carter, a democrat that presided over the biggest cutback Amtrak ever had. There was even a special train from Georgia to his inaguration. We thought the new day was dawning for passenger service under him. Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!! It was Clinton that brought us the Warrington / Dukakis non-management that Amtrak has suffered from preceding Gunn. Kerry's rail interest probably ends with DC, if it gets that far from Boston. So, if you think the Democrats are the salvation of National passenger service, think again. The rest of the country between major urban areas is just the "great fly-over"
If you think Bush is the pawn of big oil, think again. The oil money has its own agenda, and it will do its best to buy whoever is in power. So, the question becomes, who is most easily bought? Answer, the guy living on inherited money, because he does not know how to make his own way.
I could also mention Kerry's change from soldier to "anti-war" as the political winds of Massachusetts liberalism changed. Honestly, since JFKerry was playing anti US while I was sweating it out in Vietnam, I do take his position a little personal.
While there is a lot of negative things said about Bush in the press, no one can truly find fault with his basic integrity. The same can certainly not be said about Kerry. He simply flies with the prevailing wind.
He doesnt seem like the type of guy who could lead our nation.
I think Kerry would be better than Bush. Gore would have been better than both of them though. Maybe we wouldnt be stuck in Iraq right now.
------------------
--Anton L.
pillsbury09@excite.com
AIM: pillsburyMN
But if you look at how the Bush administration has done at (1)connecting the dots on terrorist activity prior to 9/11, (2)preparing for the post-war occupation of Iraq, (3)creating jobs, and (4)balancing the budget, the plan they have for Amtrak shares the same lack of foresight and selective use of facts. One presidential historian said that what distinguished the decision making process of Mr. Bush from any previous president is that he would draw a conclusion before looking at facts, then select the facts he needed to support it.
Contrary to what Mr. Harris says, I think many 'truly find fault with his basic integrity'. His Karl Rove directed campaign tactics rely more on character assassination than discussion of issues. Integrity applies to people like John McCain and Barry Goldwater (I am not a democrat).
Military records and inherited money? Mr. Bush cannot claim the higher ground here. Protesting the war? Isn't that what we fight for the right to do? Can anyone really say that it was NOT a matter of conscience? I know many who served proudly and bravely in that war, but had agonizing questions of conscience.
I liked your post, Mr. Harris. It made me think and it was well stated. But I come to different conclusions. As for the socialism to conservatism evolution, I was a Barry Goldwater fan in my youth, and a Paul Wellstone fan after 40, so I must be disqualified. Inconsistent? Barry Goldwater and George McGovern were best friends.
As for the vicious bipartisonship that always pops up on these political threads, please avoid broad generalizations and try supporting your statements with arguments or facts. Please respect the person who disagrees with you.
Bush: Insists Amtrak get nothing more than $900 million for FY 2005 unless congress adopts his "reform" plan, which nearly everyone agrees is unworkable. Norman Mineta has admitted that "Gunn is right on the numbers" (that $900 million is a shutdown budget), but Bush isn't backing down. Yet his plan requires multi-state compacts to make long-distance trains running. Just try coordinating multiple state budgets to keep just one train going. The states (which the Bush people never consulted with prior to anouncing the plan) have said this won't work!
Kerry: Has said relatively little about Amtrak per se, but he has advocated increased investment in rail (particularly high-speed) to help stimulate the economy and reduce dependence on foreign oil. He also advocates expanding rail service to rural areas, which implies support for long-distance trains.
This is only one of many reasons why Kerry gets my vote.
Second, who knows where Kerry really is on Amtrak? He flip-flops so much, he could be simultaniously for and against Amtrak, and he would get the usual media pass for that.
Bottom line, your Congress critters are WAY more important that the President when it comes to Amtrak funding.
The President's main job function is to protect and defend the USA. Compared to the last one, this President is doing an outstanding job of killing our enemies! Over the next 4 years, we will be dealing with the terrorists in Syria, Iran, and N Korea. We really don't need a Kerry attempting to defend our Nation. Kerry's idea of defending our Nation is bending over, grabbing his ankles, and demanding that they not hurt him or he will get "mad"... (It's the French way of fighting a war)
quote:
Originally posted by mikesmith:
First off, Mr Toy, where did you get that "President Bush insists" from?
Here: http://www.narprail.org/h0403.htm
quote:
You do realize Mineta developed the plan and Bush signed off on it, right?
Of course. Mineta represents the Bush administration's official policy on transportation matters, no?
Do you think the Bush/Mineta plan will work? Why did the administration not bother to consult with the states, the host railroads, and Amtrak before publishing their proposal? After all, they will need the cooperation of all of these agencies for their plan to be implemented. Yet every one of them have said the plan is impractical! Granted, the plan has some good points, particularly the federal matching grants for infrastructure improvements, and spinning off the NEC, but coordinating multiple states to fund interstate routes would be a logistical nightmare.
On that matter, Bush is a hyopocrite. When he was governor of Texas he was asked to help fund the Texas Eagle. He responded by saying that funding Amtrak was a federal responsiblility, not a state responsibility. Talk about flip-flopping!!!
quote:
You also realize all spending is approved by our Congress, right? And one Senator Hutchison trumps a Mineta every single time.
Of course I realize that. That's why Amtrak got $1.2 billion last year instead of the shutdown budget Bush proposed.
quote:
Second, who knows where Kerry really is on Amtrak?
I've already reported above all I know. I also know where Bush stands, and I don't like his position.
quote:
Bottom line, your Congress critters are WAY more important that the President when it comes to Amtrak funding.
Agreed. But the Bush administration did propose a budget with only $900 million for Amtrak, even though Mineta has admitted it would lead to a shutdown. Is that good policy by the Bush administration?
As for the rest of your comments, they are not rail related, so I'm not gonna bite. If you would like to see some of my thinking on Bush vs Kerry read this: http://journals.aol.com/toylandmry/MrToysMentalNotes
------------------
Sing to the tune of Humoresque:
Passengers will please refrain,
From flushing toilets while the train,
Is standing in the station,
I love you.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 04-25-2004).]
Also, Mineta wants the reform authorization passed before they sign off on rational budgets for Amtrak (per your cite). That seems to be his lame reasoning for proposing only $900 million. TEA-21 has been passed by the Senate and the House and is awaiting the conference committee.
Why Bush kept Mineta, I'll never know. I think he was one of Bush's few mistakes.
[This message has been edited by mikesmith (edited 04-26-2004).]
What I do not altogether understand is the Jeb Bush attitude on the Florida scheme, there are a few points to consider: 1. The whole thing seems to be being hijacked into becoming Disney World's private access, leaving everyone else high and dry, maybe killing it at this time is a good plan. 2. Why start with Tampa to Orlando, exdept to go through Dockery's home town of Lakeland? I would think that Orlando to West Palm Beach to Miami as a starter makes much more sense.
[This message has been edited by Gilbert B Norman (edited 04-26-2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by mikesmith:
One minor problem with your post Mr. Toy. Texas DID help fund the Texas Eagle under Governor Bush's administration.
But what was Bush's position on that? Did the legislature approve it against his objections, or did he ultimately change his mind? Whatever Texas ultimately did does not change the fact that at one time Bush expected the feds to pay for it, while now he expects the states to pay for it. Flip-flop.
quote:
Also, Mineta wants the reform authorization passed before they sign off on rational budgets for Amtrak (per your cite). That seems to be his lame reasoning for proposing only $900 million. Why Bush kept Mineta, I'll never know. I think he was one of Bush's few mistakes.
The key phrase here is "lame reasoning." Obviously Bush keeps Mineta because Bush likes him, lame reasoning and all. I dare say Bush accepts Mineta's lame reasoning. The blind leads the blind.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 04-26-2004).]
From http://www.trainweb.org/arkrail/atk97_31.htm
CHICAGO -- Amtrak has decided to postpone the termination of the Texas Eagle for several days based on legislative action taken today by the Texas House of Representatives and the anticipated approval of this measure by the Texas Senate and Gov. George Bush in the coming week. Reservations are now being accepted for the southbound departure on Sunday, May 11, from Chicago and St. Louis and the northbound departure from San Antonio on Tuesday, May 13.
And from http://www.trainweb.org/arkrail/atk97508.htm
Final approval by the Texas State Senate is necessary before the bill can go to the governor for his approval. Gov. George Bush's office has indicated he will support the legislation.
And finally, to refute your accertation about a flip-flop (Kerry trademark); here's the reason:
From http://www.onlinetoday.com/users/mobdaldm/md121996.htm
Governor Bush has made it clear that Texas has no responsibility for funding the Texas Eagle as an interstate train since similar requirements are not outstanding for other states, How many NEC states other than New York have even contributed 403b money? He considers this to be a federal responsibility and says that no money will be forthcoming other than, perhaps, for publicity through tourism sources. We cannot support diversion of fuel taxes to Amtrak unless it is clear how the money will be distributed, otherwise it is a certainty that -->it will all go to the NEC high speed project<--{!!!!}. We fully support Gov. Bush in his objections to this prejudicial treatment.
quote:
Originally posted by mikesmith:
Mr Toy, let me help you understand the Texas situation........finally, to refute your accertation about a flip-flop; here's the reason:
From http://www.onlinetoday.com/users/mobdaldm/md121996.htm
Governor Bush has made it clear that Texas has no responsibility for funding the Texas Eagle as an interstate train since similar requirements are not outstanding for other states,...
OK, I read all three pages through. Clearly Bush changed his mind somewhere in the process. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if Kerry changes his mind, you shouldn't call it a "flip-flop".
But let's look at how this applies to the administration's current position. The above quote suggests Texas was being asked to bear a burden not shared by other states. I agree with Bush that is not a good thing. But now he (or more precisely, his administration) wants to have the states bear the entire burden of funding interstate trains, with no federal involvement.
Naturally, the states have objected to this, partly because it would be extremely difficult to coordinate, partly because they don't currently have the resources to do that. Why, oh why, didn't the administration consult with the states before asking them to take it on???
If Bush was disturbed by Amtrak's request in 1996, why does he think he can make similar demands of all states in 2004? Maybe there's a way to make it work, but the administration has yet to explain it in sufficient detail to convince anyone of its validity. He needs the cooperation of the states to get anywhere on this. Given that no such thing is forthcoming, why doesn't the administration reconsider its position?
Developing a plan without consulting the affected parties is a recipe for failure.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 04-26-2004).]
It's not a feasible plan at all.
And Kerry's flip-flops are legendary; but not important to this discussion.
That said, Bush has an MBA, which means he oversees the people working under him. He hires the best people he can find for the job at hand and then allows them to do their job. For whatever reason, he thinks Mineta knows transportation.
It's clear that Mineta does not know "rail" transportation. However, the Bush/Mineta plan does not expect each state to bear the entire burden. He appears to want the states to handle some of the actual cost of the trains traversing each state.
I disagree with this premise. National transportation requires a National game plan and solution. A dedicated $.02 per gallon of gas (the popular way of getting transportation funds) would solve Amtrak's problems with the right management of Amtrak. Mr Gunn seems to be the right CEO at the right time for Amtrak. What we need to do is write Bush and tell him that Mr. Gunn knows rail and Mineta doesn't.
There will be no new taxes while Bush is President, so we need to convince our Congress critters to dedicate 2 cents from the 4.25 cent a gallon tax that clinton snagged for the general fund in 1993, and dedicate it to Amtrak.
Write your Congress critters. 2005 is a great target for this because it's not an election year and there is lots of time before Bush's successor is chosen in 2008.
And it could help to provide some tax incentives for the host railroads to keep Amtrak on time.
None of my representatives are Democrats, so I have not thought about a "hook" for them.
And remind our representatives that we will desperately need a rail system when we hit 400,000,000 citizens. Remind them it is far easier and cheaper to plan for that right now, instead of being forced to deal with it when the reality hits us.
quote:
Originally posted by mikesmith:
To convince Republicans, you need to name clinton as the tax increaser for the 4.3 cent a gallon tax and the fact that a gas tax has not benefited transportation. That's our "hook".
...which will only convince those Republicans, and anyone else who listens, that a gas tax is unfeasible--tried and failed.
Even this fierce Independent concedes that Republicans are amenable to reason. Just tell them we need rail subsidy and tell them why (your last paragraph is one of many good reasons). No need to appeal to base instincts with blame-games on past administrations.
[This message has been edited by JFB (edited 04-28-2004).]
And know, I'd like to share a few other thoughts:
Myth: Passenger rail can be self sufficient.
Truth: There's not a National transportation system in the world that's self sufficient.
Myth: Amtrak can be weened of Federal money:
Truth: With any business, you got to spend money to make money. How can Amtrak sell a desirable product when it doesn't have the capital to improve upon it's product and stay competive.
Myth: Amtrak is a waste and is only kept alive by a handful of fanaticals trying to live in the past (or something like that).
Truth: Try telling the millions of working class rural/suburban Americans who can't afford to fly that they now have to take the Greyhound.
Myth: Bush has little say.
Truth: Bush ultimately has veto power over anything coming out of both/either houses.
------------------
Patrick