posted
I feel the same way, Mr. Toy. First, screw up the world and the economy, and then get dirty with Amtrak. It's a buy-out by the airlines.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Look on the bright side. There are few things that Istook could have done that would have been more self-destructive than what he did. You better believe that all these people that he stabbed in the back will be out to get him, and in the most publically damaging way possible.
Another bright spon: I have heard that McCain will no longer be able to hold Amtrak hostage on the Senate side.
All in all, things may be look ing up for Amtrak. One press article on the budget even descirbed it as one of the favored programs because it did not get the cuts some other programs did.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
First, the world is coming off of the most productive year on record with a 4% across the board increase in economic productivity and most of that is coming form the "poor" Nations. Not exactly screwing up the world and its economy.
Second, Istook will pay. Perhaps he won't be a committee head in 2006... Perhaps a few Senate Republicans will have a chat with the Republican leadership in the House.
Yea, lots of perhap'es... We shall see.
[This message has been edited by mikesmith (edited 12-01-2004).]
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
quote:Originally posted by mikesmith: Second, Istook will pay. Perhaps he won't be a committee head in 2006... Perhaps a few Senate Republicans will have a chat with the Republican leadership in the House.
If the GOP is truly the party of morals and ethics, they'd better do something to reign in Istook, and not wait until '06.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 12-01-2004).]
RRCHINA Member # 1514
posted
PLease, can we let go of politics?
One can always find a politician or an issue where there is an opportunity to critcize and, perhaps, the criticism is justified in a particular instance. But neither party may claim the " high ground" consistantly.
So lets deal woith issues and a positive way to accomplish objectives. And if we find after much discussion that we did not know enough, or were substantially mistaken, then admit it and go forward with positive plan.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
Well, its difficult to disengage Amtrak from politics, since the two are so closely intertwined. But after having second thoughts, I did edit my previous post to remove the portion unrelated to Amtrak.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
RRChina...
Politics is a part of Amtrak, and talking politics helps to get me motivated to write my Congress critters and complain or explain my position on Amtrak.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
Mike, I don't agree with much of your politics, but I do respect you and appreciate your support of Amtrak.
As a Republican yourself, let me ask you, how can we get more Republicans to support Amtrak, or at least a national rail network of some type? What would make it appeal to their basic principles?
The energy efficiency argument doesn't work, that's considered a "liberal" issue. Ditto for the environmental benefits. Public service? That's for the private sector, not the government. Economics? Conservatives generally don't like the look of Amtrak's bottom line, so it must be a waste of money. How do we remove this perpetual mental block and move towards progress?
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
Mr. Toy; The tack I take is the population explosion and the problems and congestion we currently have with air travel. By the time our Nation hits 400,000,000 people, we will definitely need a rail alternative. Starting to expand it now will be much cheaper than trying to re-build it in 2015. Go for the logical and practical side, while giving examples of the wastefulness of the typical bureaucracy. {IE: HUD loses more than Amtrak needs each year} And, as an added bonus, energy-efficiency and environmental friendliness of a National rail sysytem would de-rail some of the liberal criticism of Republicans.
Also, Republicans do expect clean air, same as every other human. We just are not willing to go back to horse and buggy days to "protect" the planet. We do expect the benefits to outweigh the negatives.
It sounds like Congress member Istook is a trifle bit remorseful regarding his earlier actions, however, it doesn't look like he will be replaced with someone more pragmatic and realistic regarding our nation's passenger rail issues - yet.
------------------ Over 20,000 miles aboard Amtrak trains.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." - Mark Twain.
Charles Reuben Member # 2263
posted
Mr. Toy,
Your posting inspired me to write about the Istook situation on this week's installment of my webpage, "Chucksville."
I hope I got the facts straight. If you or anybody seems to think I screwed something up, please advise so I can fix it.
Chucksville may not be the NY Times yet, but it does seem to get about 10 hits or so a day. That may not be a lot, but who knows what effect it may have in the overall picture?
Cordially,
Chuck Reuben (proud Mayor of Chucksville)
[This message has been edited by Chucky (edited 12-03-2004).]
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
quote:Originally posted by mikesmith: Mr. Toy; The tack I take is the population explosion and the problems and congestion we currently have with air travel. By the time our Nation hits 400,000,000 people, we will definitely need a rail alternative.
That's pretty much what the liberals have been saying for years, and it is how I see it, too. But this requires foresight and long-term planning, something that is generally lacking in Washington DC.
The Republicans, at least those who perpetually attempt to withhold funding for Amtrak, are more interested in "profitability" than the greater public need. The prevailing belief is that market forces alone are sufficient to settle the supply/demand problem. It is common enough among GOP members that they have been able to prevent any significant rail investment for many decades.
quote:Republicans do expect clean air, same as every other human. We just are not willing to go back to horse and buggy days to "protect" the planet.
Ah, and therein lies part of the problem. Many Republicans consider trains to be as obsloete as the horse and buggy. I've had several tell me that we shouldn't fund Amtrak because, as technology evolves, some things naturally fall by the wayside. To them, trains are to the 21st century what horse and buggies were to the 20th.
But they forget that horse and buggy technology didn't go away. It evolved into the automobile. The stagecoach evolved into the Greyhound bus. The Ford Trimotor evolved into the 747. Trains have evolved, too, just not in the USA. Technology-wise, Amtrak is pretty much stuck in the days of 2-lane intercity highways and piston engine airliners. And there it will stay until our national leadership discovers there is more to trains than nostalgia.
Chucky, thanks for sharin'. Just wondering, where did you get the figures regarding taxpayer expenses for Amtrak, airways and highways? The $5/$50/$130 per capita numbers? That really puts it into perspective. Is there an equivalent figure for waterways?
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
As someone who is, politically, somewhere between a Libertarian and far to the right of Rush Limbaugh, I can understand the division in the Republican ranks. I am tremendously against subsidizing the airlines and where, in our constitution, does it provide for a government-run national transportation system? Having stated that, I am a strong supporter of Amtrak because: 1. I love trains. 2. The 1.8 billion or whatever Amtrak needs is peanuts compared to other spending programs. I think rather than appeal to Democratic or Amtrak-friendly politicians, I think it would be much more productive to show the public a working example of a first-rate passenger system, in this country, and let the public engender more support in the direction of politicians. I am turned off by the notion that "all rail systems must be highly subsidized by the fed. government". It is kind of like saying a postage stamp should cost 3x the current price, as "Eurpopeans pay that much..so our stamp is inexpensive". I ask, who wants to be like the Europeans? Using logic: 1. A govt-run passenger rail system (Amtrak) running over frieght line tracks will never amount to a first-class system, especially with the yearly funding hassles. 2. Past experience, in trying to meet Amtrak needs, gives credence to the notion that the US will never fund a major passenger rail system, such as the French TGV. 3. There needs to be a "test market" to gain accceptance and enthusiasm with the American public. But, how do you "test market" a passenger train? 4. Possibley, if private carriers (UP, etc) were induced to experiment with a first-rate passenger system via govt. tax breaks and subsidies, we could have a test market system, say in the northwest corridor as an example (I think the popularity of the Cascades may be a key to the future). If the above is improbable, we can keep Amtrak chugging along. However, I don't see an expansion of funding to bring Amtrak up to the standards. We can keep prodding our congressmen, but I think it would be better to have a working example of a first class train for the public to latch onto. You may say a test marking using private carriers will never work. You may be right, but I think Amtrak, as it is, will never work.
Charles Reuben Member # 2263
posted
Mr. Toy,
I arrived at my numbers by simply dividing the amounts of subsidies that go to rail, airports and highways by 200,000,000.
I'm sure somebody out there can come up with a more accurate account of what every taxpayer pays for transportation.
I felt it was important to make the numbers more understandable to the average taxpayer.
Thanks for the reply, Chuck
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted I've got it!!!
Instead of trying to get Republicans interested in supporting Amtrak, let's get them behind a free market transportation policy. We should lobby for legislation to require all transportation systems to be 100% self-sufficient by, say, 2010. Call it the Transportation Free Market Act. They can't turn that down. Otherwise they'll have to admit they subsidize highways and aviation.
posted
I'm willing to bet a dinner in the diner that this will never happen.
Why?
Highway construction brings high-paying construction JOBS to States. Congresscritters of the House and Senate varieties just love to bring home JOBS. Helps them be re-elected.
All politics is local.
------------------ The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations
MPALMER Member # 125
posted
Point out the industries and jobs that result from Amtrak funding; stuff that both major parties can be proud of (I don't think we'll ever get the Libertarians sold on this though. I am registered as a Libertarian but I do not blindly adhere to all party views)
posted 