Prohibit "First-Class" Subsidies on Amtrak Potential savings of $1.2 billion over ten years
Of interest, my "Critter', Rep Judy Biggert (R-IL13) voted in favor, i.e.unfavorably to passenger train interests.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
It is kind of a strange way of looking at the situation...ie. paying the $396 per sleeper that is the govt. subsidy. The concept is sort of like a medical co-pay.
If we did pay the $396, would that be added on to the cost of a sleeper that now exists, or would they reduce the cost of the sleeper? That would be nice but I don't think so. I don't like the idea, but if we are going to have an Amtak co-pay should it not apply to the coach seats, as well?
I would, even though meals are covered with the sleeper package, be glad to pay for all meals, on Amtrak, if they go back to freshly prepared food in an on-board kitchen.
Richard
Posted by DeeCT (Member # 3241) on :
Several questions. Where did they arrive at this $396 dollar figure? Is that figure per day - per trip - per what? What is the subsidy rate per coach passenger? (Remember room rates are in addition to the basic passenger (coach) rate.)
If I make a cross country trip -- say Boston to Los Angeles ---- and travel first class How much is the subsidy if traveling Amtrak? How much is the subsidy if flying? How much is the subsidy if I drove?
I do not fly (last flight in 2000). I drive about 10 miles per week. Yet my tax dollars go to subsidize both forms of transportation. Where is the proposal to eliminate those subsidies and pass those costs on to the Airline passenger and Auto owner?
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
I'll check and see if my critter voted for this. If so, I'll suggest he save us $370 billion over 10 years by eliminating the roadway subsidies, or $140 billion by eliminating the airways subsidies, or even saving us $60 billion by eliminating the waterway subsidies.
I'd be curious about his response. On edit: Ted Poe did vote for the $1.2 billion savings over 10 years, so I'll send him my letter and will get back to everyone when he responds (He does respond, unlike Queen Sheila, when I was in her district)
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
I was just thinking... I priced out a trip from Austin to Chicago to Whitefish to LAX to Houston for next May for around $2000 for my wife & I. That trip includes 5 sleepers, at $400 subsidy per sleeper, that would add $2000 to my trip (double the price). There is something radically wrong with that subsidy cost. Someone screwed up the math.
Posted by Southwest Chief (Member # 1227) on :
Unfortunately my "critter" voted yes on this. And I even sent a letter hoping he would support Amtrak funding with an actual letter response that he would.
Cutting subsidies doesn't seem like a full support of Amtrak to me.
And I wonder if this is even worth fighting for. How much could be saved by a yes vote on this? Probably not much in the overall big picture.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
If congress has a problem with how Amtrak is being managed, they should deal with Mr. Boardman.
The answer is certainly not to engage in micro managing. That can only have disastrous results as evidenced by the wasteful diner-lite experiment.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Congress micro-managing anything will always be a disaster. Most of those politicians do not have the necessary experience to manage any business.
And I have written and sent my letter to Ted Poe.
Posted by amtrak92 (Member # 14343) on :
The way I look at it, if you took the highway, airway, and waterway subsidies and put it into passenger rail. Which would be an additional 570 billion. We might be able to get more passengers. What they need to do is quit picking on the passenger trains. The first class is what attracts a lot of people to the train that can afford it. When you go from my area. You can leave from Florence (FLO at 11:45 PM, and get to DC at 7:46 the next morning. The airlines can't keep up with that. You sleep thru the night and your well rested in the morning, and the train pulls into downtown. Way before the airlines could get you there. If you can afford the sleeper it makes it a lot easier then taking a plane, due to arrival times. You agree. Specially now, the sleepers aren't much more expensive then a plane. In some markets. They are just looking for something to say no to. Party of no. I'm sorry if I offend anyone but that is my opinion.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
Something about this is fishy. According to the web site this item was voted on by the House using this process:
quote:Each week, the public votes on one of five wasteful spending items, then the House votes on the item chosen by the people. You told Washington where you stood, here is how your Representatives in Washington stood.
Since when does the public vote on which budget items will go to the House floor? I don't recall reading about that in my high-school civics class. Furthermore, it means four out of five wasteful spending items stay in the budget, and the fifth "winning" item goes to a House vote and may pass or not. This doesn't make any sense.
Posted by DeeCT (Member # 3241) on :
Just Google Eric Cantor and check out a few articles listed and you will find all you need to know about Mr Cantor.
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
Any national-level politician who claims to worry about our deficit or spending issues, and does not have a serious suggestion for defense, MediCare or Social Security changes, is doing nothing but obfuscating the public.
Posted by amtrak92 (Member # 14343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: Something about this is fishy. According to the web site this item was voted on by the House using this process:
quote:Each week, the public votes on one of five wasteful spending items, then the House votes on the item chosen by the people. You told Washington where you stood, here is how your Representatives in Washington stood.
Since when does the public vote on which budget items will go to the House floor? I don't recall reading about that in my high-school civics class. Furthermore, it means four out of five wasteful spending items stay in the budget, and the fifth "winning" item goes to a House vote and may pass or not. This doesn't make any sense.
I agree. That isn't in class. If it was, we would be further in debt, as people want what they want. Good point.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
In their arguments, Cantor et al talk about a low percentage of Amtrak travelers getting sleepers. But they don't seem to realize that's because there aren't enough sleepers! In fact, they don't really realize anything about Amtrak; they don't understand anything. They just want to cut it because Joe Biden is for it, or some other stupid gamesmanship reason like that. . . .
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
One of the reasons that politicians, party notwithstanding, like having inexpensive ancillary programs around is that they have something, such as in this case the Amtrak LD System, to kick around, "demand a congressional investigations", and make wind about 'wasteful spending'. It is just one of the rules of the game.
Surprise upon surprise to hear this from me, but I highly doubt if any measurable savings arose from either the Carter or Mercer (Clinton) Cuts; safe assumption that nothing arose from the Bush administration "prunings".
All told the recently announced 130 car order, which even though not presently funded past the first of five installments (the first installment is being funded from Amtrak's increased revenues; remember Amtrak need not return their appropriation if their passenger revenues increase - they'd best find some use for it as if you don't use it you won't get it next year), will be placed in service. Even if Amtrak itself is no bastion of enthusiasm over the LD trains (if they REALLY wanted to restore Sunset East, it would be running today), they, along with the Class I industry, accept the existing level of LD's will continue to be around.
Expansion, beyond additional Sleeper lines on existing trains? that's a different story.
Posted by amtrak92 (Member # 14343) on :
I agree with you Sojourner. They just want to cut it as democrats support it. Classic Party of no
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Right... No to socialism.. No to Big Government, No to plaintiff lawyers bleeding companies dry, No to the hatred towards capitalism. We desperately need the Party of No, until we kick out of our House and Senate the people hurting our Nation.
Posted by City of Miami (Member # 2922) on :
Please take your distasteful diatribes somewhere else where you have worthy opponents. They have no place here whatsoever.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
You left one big no, as I see it, out Mike. NO to all the big companies thst are bleeding middle America dry with their tax loops and concessions. Miami. I must say I agree with you. We shold be ablew to diagree or have different opinions without name calling or meanness.BTW I am an independent voter so I try to see both sides.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
OK< I'll modify my post.
However, companies do not pay taxes nor do they receive loopholes or concessions. As an example... If you bought a gallon of milk this week, you paid $1.50 for the milk and $1.00 in taxes. The farmer rolled his taxes into the milk The transportation company rolled their taxes into the milk. The processor rolled their taxes into the milk. The transportation company rolled their taxes into the milk. The wholesaler rolled their taxes into the milk. The transportation company rolled their taxes into the milk. The retailer rolled their taxes into the milk. Then you paid for the milk and your share of their taxes.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by City of Miami: Please take your distasteful diatribes somewhere else where you have worthy opponents. They have no place here whatsoever.
Are you referring to Amtrak92?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Smith, you give an excellent example of how the Corporation Tax, which as I always told my clients when I had to listen to the "they ought to tax those rich corporations more' line, is a regressive tax - and in fact it is a regressive tax hidden so that John Q thinks it is a progressive tax on someone else.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
If the topic is now taxes, the Bush tax cuts on the richest people should be allowed to expire.
Why? Because the richest 1% of the population sucks up 23% of total household income, more than double their take of 10% in 1979. If the Bush tax cuts were to expire their take would be reduced to 20%, still double their share from 1979.
In the last 30 years, 90% of all income growth went to the richest 10% of the population.
Also in that time, CEO salaries went from being 30 times the average income of their employees to 300 times the average income.
They can afford higher taxes.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Mr Toy, you have fallen for the media "big lie". Bush did not cut taxes on the rich.
Before Bush's tax cuts, the rich were paying 84% of ALL income taxes. After Bush's tax cut, the rich were paying 86% of ALL income taxes.
Bush screwed the rich into paying another 2% of all income taxes. While this link is not the link I used to get my 2% figure (IRS website) it should be able to explain it. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff70.pdf Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Thanks, Mr Norman. Feel free to use it. I have been using it for a decade or so...
You might want to change it to "rolled their taxes into the cost of the milk". That would not all fit on the same line, so I lopped off a part of my response to make it more readable.
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
Well, I don't see much about Amtrak in this thread anymore, and the thread did veer pretty sharply, but I do have to comment that while the positions taken are polar opposites, I didn't see any name calling or meanness. As in all these discussions I've participated in (not on this forum), I'm always at some point reminded of Disreali's quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Posted by amtrak92 (Member # 14343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: If the topic is now taxes, the Bush tax cuts on the richest people should be allowed to expire.
Why? Because the richest 1% of the population sucks up 23% of total household income, more than double their take of 10% in 1979. If the Bush tax cuts were to expire their take would be reduced to 20%, still double their share from 1979.
In the last 30 years, 90% of all income growth went to the richest 10% of the population.
Also in that time, CEO salaries went from being 30 times the average income of their employees to 300 times the average income.
They can afford higher taxes.
I agree, the superentendent of schools in my area, gets paid an undisclosed amount of money. If you drive by his house you can tell it is a lot. 3 BMW's, and a mansion on a lake. While the schools are having to lay off teachers, and force everyone to pay to go to public school. So his income is high. I say tax him more for it.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: Right... No to socialism.. No to Big Government, No to plaintiff lawyers bleeding companies dry, No to the hatred towards capitalism. We desperately need the Party of No, until we kick out of our House and Senate the people hurting our Nation.
One overtly political post gives rise to another, Mike. Seems the "party of no" struck again, and was called out by one of my heroes on the House floor yesterday. This guy's got cojones the size of your state:
Sure, Ocala... If you ignore the facts and let your emotions run wild, I can see where you might think he has some semblance of cojones. That illusion disappears just as soon as you start looking into the facts.
Well, I'll continue out on this thin limb, and state that this bill was feel good politics from the get go - at its core, $7.4B for an unspecified group of people for unspecified and unproven issues. If it wasn't for that magical "9/11" tag, I'm surprised ANY Rep. worried about fiscal responsibility would support it. But this is my last post on this thread - back to Amtrak for me!
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
From the Kristof article: "..the United States, which used to lead the world in the proportion of young people with college degrees, has dropped to 12th." Wow.
And in health care outcomes, life expectancy, infant mortality we are well past 25th. But our rail system is the envy of the world, right? Well, it kind of used to be in the 40's.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Twin Star, I would presume you are addressing "passenger rail", as distinct from "rail".
For the 98% of the business, we're the best in the world....for that other 2%?.....well.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
Interesting how my post was interpreted as "classic party of no" when that was not what I said; what I thought I said was that the attitude of each party is to go against the other party often for no reason other than gamesmanship.
However, I do think Republican record on Amtrak has become abysmal; most of the Republicans who supported it are now out of office (Trent Lott, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Gordon Smith, the ex-senator from Minnesota (name escapes me). And of course the current Secretary of Transportation.
and plenty more like it in most states!
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
sojourner, you have changed the subject from federal government to State government, and according to the tenth amendment, NY can do that.
However, I do agree with you. It is not a government function to give our tax dollars to private corporations without a return on the money, such as services the state needs, or direct benefits to the citizens of each State.(Think - companies that build roads or companies that furnish goods and service to the government, like copy paper and computers)
Giving tax dollars to companies to "create jobs" is ridiculous. Where is our benefit from that expenditure? However, States do have the right to do that. It is up the the citizens of that State to stop that practice, if they do not agree with it.
And yes, Amtrak is a legitimate expenditure of tax dollars. There is a significant part of our society that will not fly and cannot drive long distances. Amtrak, and to a lesser degree Greyhound, provides a national transportation need.
And FYI, Kay Bailey Hutchison isn't out of office, yet...
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:For the 98% of the business, we're the best in the world
Since that serves imports to a greater degree than exports, it's not the "best" by any stretch.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Don't know that I understand your point, Irishchieftan. But I have to agree with GBN. Our rail freight transportation is second to none. Just watch the conveyor belt of intermodal trains on the transcon or nose to tail coal trains coming out of Powder River. Apparently our financial community feels the same, just ask Mr. Buffet. And these are jobs that won't be outsourced and is an industry that requires lots of capital investment to maintain the railroad which helps our beleaguered manufacturing sector.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
And keeps huge amounts of 18 wheelers off of our highways, cutting down on the traffic and maintenance.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Don't know that I understand your point, Irishchieftan
All of those trains are sending our money out of the country. I'd rather replace them all with varnish. I no more believe those numbers than I believe the numbers out of the government; all I see with those freight trains is our trade deficit climbing higher.
quote:keeps huge amounts of 18 wheelers off of our highways
Somehow I do not think so.
And also something tells me that it's 99 percent perception. Gemünden am Main sees a high number of electrified freights, something the US pioneered but gave up in spite of its higher efficiency than diesel-electric.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: Mr Toy, you have fallen for the media "big lie". Bush did not cut taxes on the rich.
Before Bush's tax cuts, the rich were paying 84% of ALL income taxes. After Bush's tax cut, the rich were paying 86% of ALL income taxes.
The "share" of total tax revenue revenue paid by the rich isn't really the issue. Bush gave everyone a tax cut, but the rich got a smaller tax cut, so their "share" of total tax payments increased even as their actual taxes decreased.
What really counts when measuring the tax burden is what percentage an individual's income is taxed. The rich folk as a whole didn't see their taxes increase 2% under Bush as you imply.
Anyway, those tax cuts certainly didn't bring us to long-term prosperity as predicted. Instead they forced us to finance two wars on Chinese loans, leading us into quite a financial pickle. Letting the tax cuts expire (as scheduled under Bush's plan) on those who can most easily afford it will help reduce the deficit, making it less tempting to do a hatchet job on Amtrak's budget.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Except the dems are talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire... all of them. including the $300 tax cut all tax payers received. (10% tax bracket)
My thoughts are; everyone pays income tax if you are employed. 10% of all earnings would be fair to everyone. If you make $2,000 a year, you pay $200 in income tax. If you make $20,000,000 a year, you pay $2,000,000 in income tax.
There is no reason to penalize one class of citizens and give preferential treatment to another class of citizens. We all live here, we all should contribute to the financing of our government.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
The guy can't spell Eisenhower (or maybe he misspelled it deliberately).
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Not accurate, Ocala. From 1980 to 1988, federal income tax revenue rose from $885 billion to $1,676 billion, almost doubling in 8 short years. The problem Reagan had was the congressional democrats promised to cut spending and, as usual, they lied.
The only fair way to raise the money for our Federal government is to tax everyone at the same rate. We are all supposed to be equal, right?
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
Mike I think what you are overlooking is the fact that $100 to one family may be the difference between food and medicine to another. the lower the income the harder it is to get by. Plus which it seems to me if we were all really equal everyone wwould make the same amt. of salary.Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't that what socialism is suppoed to be?
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Train Lady, none of us are equal, but we should all be equal under the law. If you pay 10% of your pay, then I should pay 10% of my pay to maintain our government. If you get 10 years in jail for robbing a bank, I should get 10 years for robbing that same bank.
I have been poor and there are resources I have tapped into to get food on the table. Someone that is poor should not be relieved of their duty to help finance our government.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
Mike I ssee your point but I don't agree with you which makes neither of us right or wrong.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Not true, Train Lady. I can easily be 70% right and you can easily be 30% right. Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
You could be but you're not/ The heat has probably made your figures reverse!!
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Good come-back!!!
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
Thanks!!!
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Mike Smith wrote: we should all be equal under the law
Careful with that statement. It was made explicit in the USSR's constitution, but we all know how "equal" they were there — a fulfillment of Churchill's prediction of "equal sharing of misery".
quote:Article 34. Citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, (gender), education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status.
The equal rights of citizens of the USSR are guaranteed in all fields of economic, political, social, and cultural life.
The European Union also has that "equal before the law" clause in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 20), made binding by the Treaty of Lisbon. (And their government in Brussels is a carbon copy of the Soviet government.) Both the USSR and EU grant rights through the government, as opposed to the Bill of Rights recognizing that the people retain their rights.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Not equal "before the law"; equal "under the law". There is a subtle distinction between the two. Our US Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme law of the land and we all should be treated the same under that Constitution.
And yes, I understand some of us are more equal than others.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
There should be no subtleties in distinction, since subtleties imply vagueness. Is there a blatant distinction? because a lot of self-professed and even legal authorities regard the two phrases as exactly synonymous, per the other phrase "legal egalitarianism" which is itself vague. (The state seal of Nebraska has "Equality before the law" on a banner within its field.)
As far as the Constitution goes, the Bill of Rights is the chief denominator between it and the constitutions of tyrannies. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 guarantees equal protection of the laws.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)