# Cuts from 20% to 30%



## LA Resident (Jan 4, 2011)

Sobering story that says House Republicans want cuts of 20% (could mean as high as 36% because of funding processes) in Federal programs like transportation to carry out the "voter mandate" they believe they received in November.

So much for building a rail infrastructure (or building or repairing any other infrastructure) in the US...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/politics/04fiscal.html?_r=1&hp


----------



## FriskyFL (Jan 4, 2011)

Yep, we're well on our way to building a third-world infrastructure.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 4, 2011)

To be fair, the following paragraph from the story should be taken into consideration:



> ...Even if adopted by the House, the Republicans’ budget is unlikely to be enacted in anything like the scale they envision, since Democrats retain a majority in the Senate and President Obama could veto annual appropriations bills making the reductions.


It's called political positioning, and it's done by both sides of the aisle. Remember the "public option?"


----------



## haolerider (Jan 4, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> To be fair, the following paragraph from the story should be taken into consideration:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This process is to be expected. The Tea Party clammored for changes and now that "the new group" is in, there will be changes, but most people want changes to something other than what they support!! Rail may very well come out a loser, but it is really no different than other parts of the budget that will be cut - no matter how much we all want it to improve and expand.


----------



## Tony (Jan 4, 2011)

> Is this what the people voted for?


Yes.

The problem I have with it, is how it being implemented. Basically, as it as been for centuries, everyone is for spending cuts, as long as their local or favorite project is exempt. And yes, for us, I mean the new rail expendages.

When the "Bush" tax cuts were extended a week or so ago, more pork was added to that bill, than any in history. :help:

I don't remember the people, when they voted for republicans or tea-party challengers, voted their endorsement for *more pork, more pork, more pork*.

Sorry folks, if achieving a balanced budget means foregoing the Bidden rail initiatives, then sorry, I am all for it. The USA really needs to learn to live within our means.


----------



## wayman (Jan 4, 2011)

Tony said:


> Sorry folks, if achieving a balanced budget means foregoing the Bidden rail initiatives, then sorry, I am all for it. The USA really needs to learn to live within our means.


The USA really needs to learn that our means -- diminished by tax cut after tax cut, further diminished by congressional games to make it harder to use existing revenue to support needed programs -- are insufficient to support a first-world nation.


----------



## haolerider (Jan 4, 2011)

Tony said:


> > Is this what the people voted for?
> 
> 
> Yes.
> ...


Well said. The addition of all that PORK was actually a slap in the face to everyone in the country. What it really means is that politicians will say anything they can to get elected and then do exactly what they want, in spite of the wishes of the people. Who can identify a newly elected politician (from either party) who will admit they campaigned to add more spending to the bills? I had predicted that the Tea Party would have no control over anything after the election, since it was a sham effort to do nothing but eliminate targeted Democrats. They did that, but they replaced them with more spending fools. As mentioned above, the rail efforts may be eliminated, but I have to agree that unless the country begins to learn to live within a budget, we are doomed.


----------



## LA Resident (Jan 4, 2011)

Tony said:


> > Is this what the people voted for?
> 
> 
> Yes.
> ...


Just wondering if you could specify the "pork, pork, pork" that was in that bill.

From all news accounts I read, a bill with much "pork", both Republican and Democrat, was not passed. This was the bill to extend government operations for another year. It was voted down in the Senate because of the pork issue.

So what was the "pork" in the tax extension bill?

In a larger context, the phrase "living within our means" is pretty general. We perhaps could live within our means with a 20% cut to almost every government program, but I'm not sure very many people would enjoy such living. We could perhaps live within our means by not spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on overseas military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We could perhaps live within our means by raising the full retirement age of Social Security by two years.

IN other words, there are alternatives to living within our means apart from the heated and often inaccurate rhetoric of the Tea Party movement.

According to every post-election poll, most voters had very little idea of what they were voting for other than the fact that they didn't like what was going on in the country.

That's hardly a mandate for whacking away at programs that are not pork, but which support the standard of living that everyone always assumes should be part of the American way of life.

(And given that Amtrak is hardly something to brag about now, what would Amtrak look like with a 20% cut? Would all the people on this forum enjoy having to travel to the Northeast to use all of their dearly-garnered AGR points, since that might be the one region where train service remained? And forget about AGR members; what about the need for a decent rail infrastructure for the next 50-100 years? Is that pork? Is that something that has to be offered up on the sacrificial altar of anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric?)


----------



## Shanghai (Jan 4, 2011)

There is so much "Pork" and "Political Favors" engrained in our Federal Government,

I believe we can cut 20% in our domestic spending and not reduce any subsidies to Amtrak.

The first step would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it was a sensible healthcare system

without the "Louisana Purchase," the "Cornhusker Bribe" and the other bribes in Montana, Connecticut,

Arkansas, Nevada and several other states.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 4, 2011)

Your "pork" and "fat" is my bread and butter.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 4, 2011)

haolerider said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, the following paragraph from the story should be taken into consideration:
> ...


It's truly amazing that Amtrak has had so many detractors since day one but is going to celebrate its 40th birthday in May. Although tempted many times I never swapped over to Amtrak because the same ole story was said every year, "Congress is going to cut Amtrak off next budget go round."


----------



## spacecadet (Jan 4, 2011)

Tony said:


> Sorry folks, if achieving a balanced budget means foregoing the Bidden rail initiatives, then sorry, I am all for it. The USA really needs to learn to live within our means.


Here's a graphic of the 2011 budget.

You tell me that cutting Amtrak is going to do a thing about balancing the budget.

Meanwhile, the Republicans just added hundreds of billions to the deficit by extending tax cuts for the wealthy (which were always intended to be temporary, or they wouldn't have even had *Republican* support at the time they were enacted) and cutting the estate tax, and they're planning to hold a vote in a few days to add $143 billion more to the deficit by repealing health care reform.

Sorry, but this is not about balancing the budget. It's just about politics. If anyone was really serious about balancing the budget, there is only one obvious way to get there, and cutting Amtrak is not it. (Click the "hide mandatory spending" link on the graphic I linked - what remains to be cut is pretty clear.) And I haven't seen either party propose touching that yet, because it's bad politics to do so.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

And to think the DoD used to survive on a meager $400 billion...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 4, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> It's called political positioning, and it's done by both sides of the aisle. Remember the "public option?"


To be fair it appears you're not really contesting anything said so far. You apparently acknowledge that Republicans will indeed do their very best to gut our infrastructure spending but will be held back only by their lack of control in the Senate. Any veto by Obama would be a short term obstacle at best. Considering that the so-called Public Option was immediately forfeited prior to any serious debate, let alone given an actual vote, I'm not sure why you even bothered to include it.


----------



## henryj (Jan 4, 2011)

Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into. But it has evolved into a huge taxpayer supported series of programs of which Amtrak is but a small player. We subsidize airlines, barges, ocean going vessels, trucks, cars, highways, and finally rail. We are now even afraid to raise the fuel exise tax so that the highway budget is having to take from the general fund to make ends meet. Where does it all stop. When bankruptcy looms, that is when. The whole interestate highway system should be toll supported, not taxpayer supported. Airlines should pay for the air traffic controllers, not the feds. Airports should not be tax supported, but paid for by the airlines themselves. The Federal government only has a few key roles to play, the most important of which is providing for out national defense. The other two areas are Social Security and Medicare. Of course the thieves in DC have stolen most of that so it's going bankrupt too. The rest of what they do should fall to the private sector and that would include passenger rail. If it can make money and is a viable alternative then someone will do it. The problem with implementing something like this is the perception that travel would become much more expensive. Well it already is, the costs are just hidden from view.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 4, 2011)

daxomni said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > It's called political positioning, and it's done by both sides of the aisle. Remember the "public option?"
> ...


I am acknowledging so such thing, but thank you for putting words in my mouth. I simply quoted a paragraph from the NY Times article that 20 to 30% cuts will not happen (not my words, the NY Times words), and said that the outcome will be a political compromise. That's it.


----------



## PennCentralFan (Jan 4, 2011)

If you live under repressive republican rule and amtrak runs through your district you need to write your representatives and tell them that you as their constituent depend on amtrak for transportation. You need to say that your vote depends on how they support amtrak and supports the people of your district. Even the most repressive republican wants to get reelected and wants to be seen as someone who cares about their district. Mention how small amtraks portion of the budget is compared to other things.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jan 4, 2011)

LA Resident said:


> Just wondering if you could specify the "pork, pork, pork" that was in that bill.


This might help...



> Altogether the bill includes more than 6,000 pet projects worth $8 billion, including:
> • $80 million to states and Indian tribes to preserve Pacific salmon.
> 
> • $2.5 million for bike paths in Illinois.
> ...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 4, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> I am acknowledging so such thing, but thank you for putting words in my mouth. I simply quoted a paragraph from the NY Times article that 20 to 30% cuts will not happen (not my words, the NY Times words), and said that the outcome will be a political compromise. That's it.


I can only go on what you post. If you disagree with what I said then what part did I get wrong? Yes, we all know the New York Times has an opinion about what will happen but that's not what I'm asking for. I want to know what you think will happen if the GOP/TP regain control over the Senate and/or the White House in 2012. What will hold back the 20-30% cuts from occurring then?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

> • $1 billion to begin funding President Obama's health care law.


A national law, approved by Congress, which will now be entered into the USC is *NOT* a "pet project"


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jan 4, 2011)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> A national law, approved by Congress, which will now be entered into the USC is *NOT* a "pet project"


I disagree. However, maybe you could explain the direct relationship of this to the tax cut bill?

BTW, there are many nation laws (bills?) that get passed by Congress, but remain unfunded.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > A national law, approved by Congress, which will now be entered into the USC is *NOT* a "pet project"
> ...


This is an issue of fact, not opinion. Every citizen of the country is affected by this bill, and it crosses socio-economic boundries as well as state lines.

Pet projects are typically small items limited to a community or state in order to garner votes. It does not affect the national interest. The health care bill is not a small item, it is not limited to a community, and it most certainly wasn't intended to gain votes.

Care to show where you got that list? It wasn't the CBO, I'll tell you that much. It is an extremely partisan list.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 4, 2011)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> > • $1 billion to begin funding President Obama's health care law.
> 
> 
> A national law, approved by Congress, which will now be entered into the USC is *NOT* a "pet project"


_That's the beauty of calling something "pork" - it basically means "stuff that I don't want money spent on"._

_ _

_I'd love a citation on that list as well._


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jan 4, 2011)

The reality is that this country is a plutocracy, and has been since the Constitution was ratified.

There was a perception by the Founding Brothers that "The People" were incapable of running the country, particularly after Shay's Rebellion, and other similar events, scared people into thinking that the country might be headed towards anarchy. Alexander Hamilton was a major advocator of the belief that this country needed seriously wealthy people, as only the super rich could make the capital investments needed on things like transportation projects and industry, which would help to get the economy out of the terrible shape it was in during the 1780s. The Federal Government was burdened with a huge debt from the Revolution and had almost no power to change the situation under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution permitted a stronger Federal Government which, in turn, was able to create policies that got rid of the deficit and that could steer the economy.

Draw what conclusions from all this you want, but the reality is that politics in the country are geared towards the wealthy. Just look at the Wall Street bailout as an recent example.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 4, 2011)

Allow me to weigh in: People didn't vote _for_ much of anything. They voted _against_ a lot, and such has been the case over the last few cycles. I think the narrow margins and lousy approval ratings for a number of the winners bear this out. To be fair, I think there's a lot of consternation over the spike in spending over the last few years (and how it's been used...TARP leaps to mind). The problem is that the only way to vote against TARP and the like effectively was, in many seats, to vote for a tea party type. And if you're irritated enough at the devil you know, you'll vote for the one you don't out of sheer frustration.

I think the best explanation of this is down in Florida, where Rick Scott got elected in spite of an approval rating in the mid-30s (and at net -20 in one PPP poll) while Alex Sink had a net approval rating of +2 in that same poll (44-42 for Sink vs. 34-54 for Scott).

One thing I'll say is that with a little bit of luck, someone will take a lightsaber (an axe being insufficient for the job) to support for the airlines and airports and tell them to pay for their own security while meeting certain standards. That's ten times as much money as Amtrak gets annually from the federal government and somewhere close to that for federal and state support combined (I think it came out to about $5 billion and change).


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

And highways, don't forget the highways Anderson.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 4, 2011)

henryj said:


> Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into.


That's a ridiculous fairy tale. Transport isn't profitable. Can't be without raising the cost for goods and services across the board and throwing the economy into even more of a tailspin.
A robust transportation network is necessary for interstate commerce and is clearly within the Federal government's purview.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 4, 2011)

Well, my view is that while nice, road cuts won't have the same immediate impact that air cuts will have. Passing $5 billion onto the airlines will result in a charge going onto tickets. Cutting twice that on roads, and you get...poorly-maintained roads. Which doesn't sound at _all_ like the railroads in the 1950s, now, does it?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Ryan said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into.
> ...


Rome knew that much, and they lasted centuries longer than we have.


----------



## henryj (Jan 4, 2011)

Ryan said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into.
> ...


Actually transport is highly profitable and our freight railroads prove it every day inspite of their subsidized competition. Passenger rail was once profitable until the Feds decided to build an interstate highway system and offer it up virtually free to use. The costs are hidden in the fed gasoline excise tax so people don't even realize they are paying for it. But now even that tax is inadequate. Had the system been set up as a privately run toll supported system the results would have been far different. Similarly, the airline industry was thought to need help getting itself established hence the Fed subsidies and local subsidies building airports, paying for the traffic controllers, etc. that are still with us today. The idea that these things can't be fixed without throwing the economy into a tailspin is what got us where we are today. Socialism or the 'nanny state' is not free as Europeans find out every day. If we want to continue this road then taxes are inevitably going to go up and not just a little bit. What do you think that will do to the economy? You either quit spending or you bring in more revenue to support your spending.


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 4, 2011)

The deficit spending must be brought under control otherwise bankruptcy of the USA is imminent. However, Amtrak is but a miniscule portion (2-3%) of the Federal Transportation budget. You don't cure run-a-way spending by cutting pennies. If you closed Amtrak completely it wouldn't make a noticable difference in the deficit. The cuts must be massive to make a difference.

Rail travel may also become far more important as gasoline rises to the $5 per gallon level (by 2012) forcasted recently by an oil industry analyst. I do not believe that Amtrak is going away anytime soon and forget about high speed rail as except for the NE corridor,there is little demand for it. I also do not believe that the private railroads have any interest in getting back into passenger rail. It is because they all dropped out that Amtrak exists today.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> The deficit spending must be brought under control otherwise bankruptcy of the USA is imminent. However, Amtrak is but a miniscule portion (2-3%) of the Federal Transportation budget. You don't cure run-a-way spending by cutting pennies. If you closed Amtrak completely it wouldn't make a noticable difference in the deficit. The cuts must be massive to make a difference.



To add to that, the USDOT is a small part of the Federal budget. So Amtrak is a miniscule portion of a small part.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 4, 2011)

Shanghai said:


> There is so much "Pork" and "Political Favors" engrained in our Federal Government,
> 
> I believe we can cut 20% in our domestic spending and not reduce any subsidies to Amtrak.
> 
> ...


You are wrong.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 4, 2011)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > The deficit spending must be brought under control otherwise bankruptcy of the USA is imminent. However, Amtrak is but a miniscule portion (2-3%) of the Federal Transportation budget. You don't cure run-a-way spending by cutting pennies. If you closed Amtrak completely it wouldn't make a noticable difference in the deficit. The cuts must be massive to make a difference.
> ...


Percentage does not matter. Given the chance, Republicans would ditch AMTRAK in a heartbeat. IN A HEARTBEAT.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 4, 2011)

henryj said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


I think there's a fair point to be made on what, exactly, the gas tax should be, and whether certain roads should be tolled. As I understand it in New Jersey, the big network of turnpikes they have actually makes a profit for their whole expressway system most years.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 4, 2011)

spacecadet said:


> Here's a graphic of the 2011 budget.


AWESOME chart. Most who think we can "cut spending" need to spend some time learning what exactly we spend money on first, THEN give it a try.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

daveyb99 said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


Only because it's an easy target.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 4, 2011)

henryj said:


> Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into. But it has evolved into a huge taxpayer supported series of programs of which Amtrak is but a small player. We subsidize airlines, barges, ocean going vessels, trucks, cars, highways, and finally rail. We are now even afraid to raise the fuel exise tax so that the highway budget is having to take from the general fund to make ends meet. Where does it all stop. When bankruptcy looms, that is when. The whole interestate highway system should be toll supported, not taxpayer supported. Airlines should pay for the air traffic controllers, not the feds. Airports should not be tax supported, but paid for by the airlines themselves.


(1) Transportation is one of the few federal programs which covers a significant portion of it expenditures by fuel taxes (paid into the Highway Trust Fund), ticket taxes for air passengers and cargo (paid into the Airways Trust Fund to fund FAA operations (including controllers) just to name two. Airlines (and general aviation) pay landing fees (or other monies) to support airport operations - they are not fully funded by your tax dollars.

No one is ready to raise the fuels tax (for fear of being called a Tax Hike Supporter), and since cost of materials goes up, the funding gap must be made up from general revenues --- TRUE. But how do you oppose that since dang near everything goes over a road somewhere.

(2) The "Interstate Highway System" is not a transportation project, it was a defense project (see National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956). States which "TOLL" an interstate pay federal fuel tax but do not get monies back as they get tolls instead. So their citizens are paying twice, in effect.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 4, 2011)

Anderson said:


> ... To be fair, I think there's a lot of consternation over the spike in spending over the last few years (and how it's been used...TARP leaps to mind). The problem is that the only way to vote against TARP and the like effectively was, in many seats, to vote for a tea party type.


Bush TARP funds in 2008 were spent and never paid back -- a net loss of approx $700 BILLION

Obama TARP funds in 2009 were spent and PAID BACK, at a profit to taxpayers --- a net gain of ~$25 BILLION



Anderson said:


> ... One thing I'll say is that with a little bit of luck, someone will take a lightsaber (an axe being insufficient for the job) to support for the airlines and airports and tell them to pay for their own security while meeting certain standards. That's ten times as much money as Amtrak gets annually from the federal government and somewhere close to that for federal and state support combined (I think it came out to about $5 billion and change).


Uh, that's the way it was pre-9/11. TSA airport screening is paid by the passenger via the $2.50 September 11 Security Fee per enplanement. Want to shift that to the airlines, then guaranteed it will go to a low bidder but cost way more than $2.50.....

And for the record, I would rather have a semi-professional civil servant body search me than some part time-no benefits-minimum wage paying-low bid contractor...


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 4, 2011)

LA Resident said:


> ...Just wondering if you could specify the "pork, pork, pork" that was in that bill.


The ones chanting such things have no specifics, no ideas, nothing positive -- just chanting.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 4, 2011)

henryj said:


> Actually transport is highly profitable and our freight railroads prove it every day inspite of their subsidized competition. Passenger rail was once profitable until the Feds decided to build an interstate highway system and offer it up virtually free to use.


I was talking about the moving of people, not goods in the first paragraph, so the freight RRs don't count. The genie isn't going to go back in the battle, people expect to be able to move about cheaply.


> The costs are hidden in the fed gasoline excise tax so people don't even realize they are paying for it. But now even that tax is inadequate. Had the system been set up as a privately run toll supported system the results would have been far different.


If things had been done different, of course things would have ended differently. But they weren't, so we have to live in the world where people expect a free ride. The gas tax should be increased to cover expenses of maintaining roads, AND levy it as a percentage (not a flat dollar value).


> If we want to continue this road then taxes are inevitably going to go up and not just a little bit. What do you think that will do to the economy? You either quit spending or you bring in more revenue to support your spending.


Sure thing, how do you propose to do that?


----------



## Ryan (Jan 4, 2011)

daveyb99 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > ... To be fair, I think there's a lot of consternation over the spike in spending over the last few years (and how it's been used...TARP leaps to mind). The problem is that the only way to vote against TARP and the like effectively was, in many seats, to vote for a tea party type.
> ...


Don't go confusing the issue with facts and stuff.


----------



## henryj (Jan 4, 2011)

daveyb99 said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into. But it has evolved into a huge taxpayer supported series of programs of which Amtrak is but a small player. We subsidize airlines, barges, ocean going vessels, trucks, cars, highways, and finally rail. We are now even afraid to raise the fuel exise tax so that the highway budget is having to take from the general fund to make ends meet. Where does it all stop. When bankruptcy looms, that is when. The whole interestate highway system should be toll supported, not taxpayer supported. Airlines should pay for the air traffic controllers, not the feds. Airports should not be tax supported, but paid for by the airlines themselves.
> ...


I think, Davey, that you are forgetting that railroads pay property and income taxes on every thing they own and make. Interstate highways, state operated toll roads, etc. make no such contribution nor do city owned airports. There is much to change if you want to level the playing field. Otherwise then Amtrak will just have to compete for those Federal tax dollars along with everyone else. But someone will still have to pay the bill eventually.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 4, 2011)

henryj said:


> I think, Davey, that you are forgetting that railroads pay property and income taxes on every thing they own and make. Interstate highways, state operated toll roads, etc. make no such contribution nor do city owned airports. There is much to change if you want to level the playing field.


Are you saying Highways and Airports - owned by governmental bodies - should pay property taxes to - themselves ??


----------



## henryj (Jan 4, 2011)

Ryan said:


> The genie isn't going to go back in the battle, people expect to be able to move about cheaply.
> 
> Not really. They will accept whatever is offered to them.
> 
> ...


Well I don't think either party will have the guts to raise taxes as it would be political suicide. Neither will they be able to cut spending enough to do any real good. So I think the inevitable result will be eventual bankruptcy of the country. When it reaches crises levels then something will be done simply because it has too as in Greece or we will end up like Zimbabwe. Expect riots in the streets.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 4, 2011)

Ryan said:


> daveyb99 said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


*ahem*

It's the same money: Obama is getting a fair share of the money paid back (with interest, in many cases) that was doled out under Dubya. Moreover, most of that $700 billion didn't get out the door in 2008...to quote Wikipedia's article on TARP (out of convenience more than anything; added emphasis is mine): "The first $350 billion was released on October 3, 2008, and Congress voted to approve the release of the second $350 billion on January 15, 2009. One way that TARP money is being spent is to support the "Making Homes Affordable" plan, *which was implemented on March 4, 2009*, using TARP money by the Department of Treasury." I also cite "*On February 10, 2009*, the newly confirmed Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner outlined his plan to use the *$300 billion or so remaining in the TARP funds*." While the second batch was technically authorized while Bush was still in office, the Treasury didn't use most of that money until Obama was in the door...Obama could arguably have put a hold on using the money temporarily (not impounding...just slowing things down and working on revisions to the program) if he'd seen a substantial need to. Thus, the program has been administered over two administrations and both have a share of the credit or blame.

_Unfortunately_, a lot of people see a program that was not clearly disclosed nor well-handled (particularly at the outset...a lot of the issues with bonuses only came up well after the first round of money was out the door). They also more closely associate its handling over the last two years with Obama than the Republicans...primarily because regardless of whether Bush got the program going, the present administration has had more or less total control over the program for two years now. Also, noting the point about the $700 billion: Seeing as $300 billion of it was remaining in February, 2009, it is simply impossible to blame Bush for losing money that he did not spend.

Edit: TARP isn't alone...the stimulus is a major factor, as is the healthcare bill, and the three put together have a price tag that I think a lot of people balked at.

Edit 2: One other point leaps to mind that I want to put here...voters are, regrettably, not motivated by facts, but rather what they perceive as facts. A wonderful case in point is the **** about Obama being born somewhere other than the US...something that I must regrettably rebut with care with close family members and even with colleagues in some organizations. This is not a fact, but it is taken as such by a great many voters. So when you make an off comment about "Don't go confusing the issue with facts and stuff", a response comes to mind: "Don't worry, people won't." And very frequently, they don't.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 4, 2011)

daveyb99 said:


> Percentage does not matter. Given the chance, Republicans would ditch AMTRAK in a heartbeat. IN A HEARTBEAT.


The Republican's have already had two chances under President George W Bush to kill Amtrak. Two years running, Republican George W Bush allowed his White House to send over to Congress a budget with zero funding dollars for Amtrak.

Both times the Republican Controlled Congress said "No, Mr. President, we're going to keep funding Amtrak." And they restored the funding back to at least the prior year's level, if not slightly higher both times.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 5, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Two years running, Republican George W Bush allowed his White House to send over to Congress a budget with zero funding dollars for Amtrak. Both times the Republican Controlled Congress said "No, Mr. President, we're going to keep funding Amtrak."


Not this again. How many Republicans who supposedly support Amtrak at current or expanded funding levels are being sworn-in for the 112th Congress Alan? I want actual names, not just some vague unattributed quote.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 5, 2011)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Two years running, Republican George W Bush allowed his White House to send over to Congress a budget with zero funding dollars for Amtrak. Both times the Republican Controlled Congress said "No, Mr. President, we're going to keep funding Amtrak."
> ...


I have no idea how many of the current Republican's support Amtrak or not, much less how many of them were in office during the Bush years. And I have neither the time nor the desire to go figure all of that out.

And for as long as the Senate remains in Democratic control, the House Republicans will be unable to kill Amtrak. They may be able to hurt it a bit, but they will have to reconcile their bill with the Senate's.

However, the point of my entire post however was that, not all Republicans are opposed to Amtrak. And I'm tired of that insinuation that all Republicans hate Amtrak. It couldn't be further from the truth and it's time for people to stop saying that nonsense!


----------



## AlanB (Jan 5, 2011)

AlanB said:


> However, the point of my entire post however was that, not all Republicans are opposed to Amtrak. And I'm tired of that insinuation that all Republicans hate Amtrak. It couldn't be further from the truth and it's time for people to stop saying that nonsense!


And frankly the more that the Dem's repeat that nonsense, the more likely it is that more and more of the Republican voters might actually start to beleive it.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 5, 2011)

Though I do not have names, I think you would be hard-pressed to see GOPers from NY, NJ, and MD move for a kill. Ditto some parts of PA but not others. I'm going to bolt Virginia onto that list as well...there's enough support for Amtrak at the state level that you'd get an intraparty feud going. In particular, I cannot see Rob Wittman or Frank Wolf supporting such an initiative, and the same can probably be said for Rob Wittman. I know that's an over-generalization, but at least along the NEC and the supplemental corridors, you're going to run into a lot of resistance on killing it.

I think I can safely supplement this list with at least some of the CA Republicans, though obviously not all, as well as a scattering from other areas (while the HSR line to Madison was killed, I think it's telling that Walker hasn't made a single move on the Hiawatha, for example) and I think rising ridership (not to mention the airline mess)will help fend off some attacks. I don't think Amtrak will get away unscathed, but I don't think that's happening to anyone in the current climate.

Edit: As usual, another comment comes to mind _after_ I post but before anyone else does. Go figure. Anyhow, one thing that I think will dictate things is where gas prices settle. Right now, the "middle" of the gas price heat map is at $3.06, and the national average is around $3.05. The political will to cut Amtrak is likely to be inversely related to gas prices: If we see $3.75-$4.00/gal this summer, pressure on this front is probably going to bleed off quickly. Likewise, if gas prices somehow get stuck under $3.00/gal, cutting Amtrak heavily could become a serious proposal. Similarly, if the year is a "bumper" one and ridership spikes 10%, that's another probable deterrent...as is another airport security PR nightmare.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 5, 2011)

AlanB said:


> I have no idea how many of the current Republican's support Amtrak or not, much less how many of them were in office during the Bush years. And I have neither the time nor the desire to go figure all of that out. However, the point of my entire post however was that, not all Republicans are opposed to Amtrak. And I'm tired of that insinuation that all Republicans hate Amtrak. It couldn't be further from the truth and it's time for people to stop saying that nonsense!


I can't help but wonder if you realize that you're disagreeing with the GOP's own talking points more than you're disagreeing with me. What I'm specifically claiming is that a majority of Republicans in the *112th Congress* are opposed to funding Amtrak at current or expanded levels and that they would instead prefer to drastically cut funding to whatever extent is possible for them to actually achieve. I'm claiming that the technical restriction of not controlling the Senate is the primary savior for Amtrak here in 2011, and not any pro-rail politicians that supposedly call the GOP home today. I'm also claiming that if *today's* staunchly anti-rail GOP _would have_ regained control of the Senate in November they would *not* have refrained from cutting Amtrak's funding to just shy of a presidential veto. If you disagree with that view then can you explain why? Finally I'm also claiming that if Republican John "No Service" McCain had won election in 2008 Amtrak would likely have suffered catastrophic cutbacks and setbacks by now, possibly including dissolution of several trains and/or routes. I would agree that completely killing Amtrak is unlikely but only because the NEC and a few state-funded initiatives would likely survive in some form or another. I don't believe that would be much consolation to most fans who appreciate today's network and long for one that could rival those of countries much poorer than ours. I've asked you to provide some sort of actual evidence of this pro-rail wing of the GOP that you repeatedly speak of and you have declined. Just because you don't like the idea of watching the majority of today's GOP move quickly toward staunchly anti-rail positions doesn't mean it's not happening. If you can't name a majority of GOP members who will support current or expanded funding now or in the future then how is that the fault of the Democrats? If you're tired of hearing people bash the GOP for being anti-rail maybe you should take it up with the GOP. :excl:


----------



## AlanB (Jan 5, 2011)

daxomni said:


> Finally I'm also claiming that if Republican John "No Service" McCain had won election in 2008 Amtrak would likely have suffered major cutbacks and setbacks by now, possibly including dissolution of several trains and/or routes. I would agree that completely killing Amtrak is unlikely but only because the NEC and a few state-funded initiatives would likely survive in some form or another.


Had John won, Amtrak wouldn't look much different today. If George couldn't get the Republican Congress to cut Amtrak, John certainly wouldn't have been able to get the Democratic Congress to kill Amtrak.

Now, I will allow that the picture could have been different for the next two years if John had won. However, I suspect that had John won, the Republicans wouldn't have taken over the house.



daxomni said:


> I've asked you to provide some sort of actual evidence of this pro-rail wing of the GOP that you repeatedly speak of and you have declined.


I guess you missed the fact that one of your own, Kay Bailey Hutchenson, was pro Amtrak.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 5, 2011)

AlanB said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > Finally I'm also claiming that if Republican John "No Service" McCain had won election in 2008 Amtrak would likely have suffered major cutbacks and setbacks by now, possibly including dissolution of several trains and/or routes. I would agree that completely killing Amtrak is unlikely but only because the NEC and a few state-funded initiatives would likely survive in some form or another.
> ...


I am going to repeat my broad assertion that Republicans within a reasonable distance of the NEC are going to be hard-pressed to cut Amtrak funding. I'm now going to point in particular to Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Frank Wolf (R-VA...he's from Northern Virginia, to be more specific). VA-1 has a mixed record...Jo Ann Davis voted in favor of more funding for Amtrak, while Rob Wittman voted against it. And Eric Cantor (R-VA) also backed up extra funding for Amtrak, and he's one of the top GOPers in the House. So...let's not forget that talking points are frequently just that.


----------



## JayPea (Jan 5, 2011)

I know what I'm about to say will get overlooked because it doesn't fit with the "All-Republicans-hate-Amtrak-and-all-Democrats-love-Amtrak" ideals spewed forth, but more mileage was axed from Amtrak under Jimmy Carter's term than any other. Bill Clinton's two terms weren't very good ones for Amtrak either.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 5, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Had John won, Amtrak wouldn't look much different today. If George couldn't get the Republican Congress to cut Amtrak, John certainly wouldn't have been able to get the Democratic Congress to kill Amtrak.


Not every Republican president that attempts to defund Amtrak will accomplish their goal, but that doesn't mean they won't try. What do they have to lose? From what I can gather the anti-rail positions are win-win for the GOP as anti-rail GOP voters will be extremely pleased and the pro-rail GOP voters will do all the deflecting and apologizing for them.



AlanB said:


> However, I suspect that had John won, the Republicans wouldn't have taken over the house.


I don't disagree, but if you look at the GOP's prospects for electing another anti-rail president while _also_ retaining control of the House I'd say they have an excellent chance at this point.



AlanB said:


> I guess you missed the fact that one of your own, Kay Bailey Hutchenson, was pro Amtrak.


Kay Bailey *Hutchison* does not a majority or a wing make. Her recent drubbing in the race for Texas governor set the record straight on just how much power she still retains in today's GOP. Namely, not much. She called in every favor owed her and still couldn't even make a race of it.



JayPea said:


> I know what I'm about to say will get overlooked because it doesn't fit with the "All-Republicans-hate-Amtrak-and-all-Democrats-love-Amtrak" ideals spewed forth, but more mileage was axed from Amtrak under Jimmy Carter's term than any other. Bill Clinton's two terms weren't very good ones for Amtrak either.


You know, you're absolutely right. Let's kick Carter and Clinton out of office for not loving Amtrak enough! Oh, wait.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 5, 2011)

Ok, I've checked. The only GOPers within 50 miles of the Acela line to vote against increasing Amtrak funding were Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Joe Pitts (R-PA). Bill Shuster (from western PA) split on the two votes I can find, so that's at best three incumbent Republicans from north of Fredericksburg, VA you can pin down as anti-Amtrak. Moreover, Mark Kirk (the new GOP Senator in IL) is pro-Amtrak according to his record, as are a couple of the IL House members. Mind you, I can probably find some anti-Amtrak Democrats from out in the sticks as well, and a lot of the GOP Congressmen right now are blank slates.

Again, for all of the talk of hitting Amtrak, I think that the threat of trains into upstate NY getting felled along with everything else will be enough to force at least some of the new Northeastern Congressmen to back off, and you've got a dozen of them in the new batch of 70 or 80. And I'll say right off that two of the three new Congressmen in Virginia probably aren't going to be much trouble: Hurt was, from what I can tell, very much in favor of the Lynchburg line, and Griffith was House Majority Leader when that line got its initial funding.


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2011)

How to get America out of the poor house:

Greater accountability for military spending.

Yes you do have to put a price on a life.

Dismantle to whole medical insurance industry.

As long as the doctors they can get their honey, the medical schools and the equipment suppliers ect. will continue to charge through the roof for their expenses.


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 5, 2011)

Being a slave and licking the boots of one political party is not going to influence Amtrak in any way.

We've just had 2 straight years of total Democratic rule. Unemployment is 9.8% (gov't figure) Gasoine is over $3.00 per gallon and our deficit it as an all time high. The criminals on Wall Street still gots billion of our tax money and the wars in the middle East rage on. The Amtrak budget remains low.

Keep playing feel good partisan politics while you end up in the poorhouse. Washington is all about power, they don't care about you but about their own political interests. To believe otherwise is exactly how they want you to feel. It all about which party gets their hands on the money.


----------



## jb64 (Jan 5, 2011)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Two years running, Republican George W Bush allowed his White House to send over to Congress a budget with zero funding dollars for Amtrak. Both times the Republican Controlled Congress said "No, Mr. President, we're going to keep funding Amtrak."
> ...



And who, by name, being sworn in to the 112th Congress has specifically stated that they will cut Amtrak? If you demand others to state exactly who will not cut, you must be willing and able to state exactly who will cut. Prove that this congress is Anti-Amtrak by majority, or even that this Republican caucass is Anti-Amtrak. If you are going to demand specific proof, you must be able and willing to also provide that said proof for your claim.

During the campaigns, I specifically heard campaign promises about cutting funding for government programs that are wasteful and healthcare and wars (whether you agree or not); but I do not remember any candidate running on a platform of cutting Amtrak. It is just too insignificant in the big picture. I agree with Alan and others, keeping this discussion partisan is not only not-helpful, it could be detrimental.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 5, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> We've just had 2 straight years of total Democratic rule.


No we haven't, the 60 vote filibuster saw to that.


----------



## henryj (Jan 5, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> Being a slave and licking the boots of one political party is not going to influence Amtrak in any way.
> 
> We've just had 2 straight years of total Democratic rule. Unemployment is 9.8% (gov't figure) Gasoine is over $3.00 per gallon and our deficit it as an all time high. The criminals on Wall Street still gots billion of our tax money and the wars in the middle East rage on. The Amtrak budget remains low.
> 
> Keep playing feel good partisan politics while you end up in the poorhouse. Washington is all about power, they don't care about you but about their own political interests. To believe otherwise is exactly how they want you to feel. It all about which party gets their hands on the money.


I appreciate all the discussion on this and a lot of it is very informative.....but I have to agree with this guy. It's all about money and power, Amtrak be damned.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 5, 2011)

jb64 said:


> And who, by name, being sworn in to the 112th Congress has specifically stated that they will cut Amtrak? If you demand others to state exactly who will not cut, you must be willing and able to state exactly who will cut. Prove that this congress is Anti-Amtrak by majority, or even that this Republican caucass is Anti-Amtrak. If you are going to demand specific proof, you must be able and willing to also provide that said proof for your claim.


I don't mind pitching in with the research. I'd be happy to tally up all the pro-rail Democrats if you'd be willing to tally-up all the pro-rail Republicans. Then we can release our findings here for everyone else to see and put this issue to rest. Does that sound fair enough to you?


----------



## jb64 (Jan 5, 2011)

daxomni said:


> jb64 said:
> 
> 
> > And who, by name, being sworn in to the 112th Congress has specifically stated that they will cut Amtrak? If you demand others to state exactly who will not cut, you must be willing and able to state exactly who will cut. Prove that this congress is Anti-Amtrak by majority, or even that this Republican caucass is Anti-Amtrak. If you are going to demand specific proof, you must be able and willing to also provide that said proof for your claim.
> ...


Not what I asked for, either way. You wanted every name of every pro-rail republican. So, I asked for you to provide every name of every anti-rail (so proclaimed) republican. You were the one making the claim that the new congress was anti-Amtrak. I never made a claim, so I don't need to tally anything up. As I stated, I think this is just partisanship all the way around and the continued Republican=antirail, Democrat=prorail is just a waste of time and effort as well as broad categorizations that not only not solve anything, but continue to pit us all against each other and keep us divided.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 5, 2011)

jb64 said:


> You wanted every name of every pro-rail republican.


If Alan was going to keep implying that there was a wing of the current GOP that was pro-rail I wanted to know who he thought was in that wing. Frankly I assumed he'd be just as interested to know who the GOP supporters were as I was and would do the research willingly. So far he's given me Kay Bailey Hutchison. That's one. I'm sure there are others but enough to form a wing? Seems doubtful.



jb64 said:


> You were the one making the claim that the new congress was anti-Amtrak.


It's probably more about just being rabidly anti-Obama than actually caring about what happens to Amtrak, but the resulting cutbacks would still be the same would they not?



jb64 said:


> I never made a claim, so I don't need to tally anything up.


You claimed this was _not_ a partisan issue, as in it didn't fall along party lines. I have agreed to do roughly half of the research necessary to verify this and other claims and you have declined. Is there no GOP supporter who is willing to tally their own party's current support level of Amtrak?


----------



## Anderson (Jan 5, 2011)

daxomni said:


> jb64 said:
> 
> 
> > And who, by name, being sworn in to the 112th Congress has specifically stated that they will cut Amtrak? If you demand others to state exactly who will not cut, you must be willing and able to state exactly who will cut. Prove that this congress is Anti-Amtrak by majority, or even that this Republican caucass is Anti-Amtrak. If you are going to demand specific proof, you must be able and willing to also provide that said proof for your claim.
> ...


I'm willing to work with you on this, but if we're going to do this, I'd like to agree on how we're going to define "pro-Amtrak" versus "anti-Amtrak". A lot of the new guys haven't said anything specific on Amtrak...in a lot of seats, it's simply because people _do_ forget that we have a rail system other than the NY Subway (or, in a some cases, the NEC). I was using past votes per ontheissues.com, but obviously with a lot of Congressmen who're either brand new or close to it, there are no such records for the US House. 'course, in at least some cases, you'll have action in state legislatures.

What I might suggest, for the moment, is adding up the US Senate first. The Senate is smaller (100 vs. 435) and the vast majority of Senators have been around long enough to have a record on this beyond the generic stimulus vote (and there were reasons for opposing that other than Amtrak spending...the sheer size leaps to mind as a fair objection for any non-Keynesian folks out there, not to mention the size on top of TARP). The other thing about doing the Senate first is that you'll have to get a "kill" through the Senate regardless of what the House wants.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 5, 2011)

I am really disappointed at the general attitude expressed here. Why did the Republicans win the House? The answer is here.

The House & Senate until today has been in the control of the Democrats for 4 YEARS.

Will Amtrak be de-funded or shut down?

Unlikely.

The Senate is still controlled by Democrats, & the President can still use his Veto power.

Do I think the Republicans would try?

No, the funding for Amtrak is very small.

We as a Country need to pull together & find ways to get the spending under control, period.

If you are a Republican, or a Democrat, I hope it is because they represent what you think are the important issues.

I like riding trains.

I support riding trains.

My greenie friends do not.

My Democrat friends do not.

In fact, I've recommended riding trains to anyone who will listen-and only 3 people has ridden the train because I've suggested it.

Two were Republicans.

I'm a Republican.

Please do not assume Republicans hate Amtrak, or anything else for that matter. I try to avoid assuming bad things about Democrats, until they prove me right.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 5, 2011)

daxomni said:


> jb64 said:
> 
> 
> > You wanted every name of every pro-rail republican.
> ...


First, I never implied that there was a wing of the current GOP that was pro-rail. People have been implying that the GOP has always been anti-rail and continues to be. I simply pointed out the fact that it's not true that the GOP has always been anti-rail. Therefore we cannot conclude that the current GOP is anti-rail, at least until such time as they start to prove it.

As for being interested in which GOP members support Amtrak, I don't concern myself with that until and unless I can vote for them. Kay sticks out in my mind because she's been very vocal for Amtrak, a few other's include Trent Lott, Olympia Snow, and at least until recently Thommy Thompson.

And in my area, even though I cannot vote for him, Peter King has always been pro-Amtrak and pro-rail. Being from Long Island, home of one of the largest commuter RR's in the country, he'd get run out of office if he wasn't. But from what I've seen of him, he actually does understand the logic of trains and would probably be for them no matter what.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 5, 2011)

sunchaser said:


> The House & Senate until today has been in the control of the Democrats for 4 YEARS.


This statement is useful when one wants to blame the Democrats, but falls woefully short of explaining the actual situation.
The Democrats were not the driving force behind the Bush Tax cuts or the war in Iraq, which have been the primary driver for the debt in the last 8 years.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 5, 2011)

Anderson said:


> What I might suggest, for the moment, is adding up the US Senate first.


That's fine with me. I also wonder if we're simply reinventing the wheel here. As in, maybe NARP has already done a quick gut check on each senator and congressperson which we could use as a jumping off point for further discussion.



sunchaser said:


> I am really disappointed at the general attitude expressed here. Why did the Republicans win the House? The answer is here.


It seems to me that if Americans were truly concerned about the deficit they would not have voted for Democrats *or* Republicans as those are the two parties responsible for our national debt.



sunchaser said:


> Will Amtrak be de-funded or shut down? Unlikely. The Senate is still controlled by Democrats, & the President can still use his Veto power. Do I think the Republicans would try? No, the funding for Amtrak is very small.


I don't think funding levels has much of anything to do with it. As per the GOP House members themselves the only funding that's off limits are military operations and homeland security (such as the universally beloved TSA) along with socialized medicine and other benefits for veterans. In other words they've ensured that some of the largest expenses in our budget will be left completely untouched when all is said and done. That likely means that any non-military programs will be forced to deal with an even larger hit to help make up for the shortfall. That's not based on a partisan outlook so much as simple mathematics.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 5, 2011)

Ryan said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > The House & Senate until today has been in the control of the Democrats for 4 YEARS.
> ...


I was not attempting to blame one party over another. I was simply stating fact.

We can blame all we want, it does not change the facts.

We can point to debt under Bush all we want.

We forget that we had to pay for the aftermath of 9-11 & Katrina & Rita too.

Under Obama, we have increased the debt far faster than ever before.

All I'm saying is we need to get the spending under control.

If you or I overspend, do we go out & get a credit card & spend more?

I hope not, I think we examine our budget, & start cutting out the frills until we aren't spending more than we make.

I'm not here to argue.

I don't want to see Amtrak go away. I would be surprised if it happened.

There are plenty of other things that can be trimmed instead, such as reversing the 20% in raises that Federal Employees have gotten since Obama has been in office.


----------



## pebbleworm (Jan 5, 2011)

It's always interesting to read these dispatches from fantasy land! And kind of appalling how many out and out lies keep circulating as gospel truth. Combine slashing federal income with huge expenses for not one but two meaningless and un-winnable wars, AND deregulate the financial system to the point where it can be looted. And now to say that deregulation and tax cuts are the solution is like a drunk saying "Whiskey got me into this mess, whiskey will get me out!".


----------



## Ryan (Jan 5, 2011)

sunchaser said:


> Under Obama, we have increased the debt far faster than ever before.


Only because of the Stimulus, which was necessary due to the abysmal economy.


> All I'm saying is we need to get the spending under control.


Or raise taxes. 


> There are plenty of other things that can be trimmed instead, such as reversing the 20% in raises that Federal Employees have gotten since Obama has been in office.


As the husband of a Federal worker, I can assure you that hasn't happened.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 5, 2011)

pebbleworm said:


> It's always interesting to read these dispatches from fantasy land! And kind of appalling how many out and out lies keep circulating as gospel truth. Combine slashing federal income with huge expenses for not one but two meaningless and un-winnable wars, AND deregulate the financial system to the point where it can be looted. And now to say that deregulation and tax cuts are the solution is like a drunk saying "Whiskey got me into this mess, whiskey will get me out!".


Indeed. When the Democrats aren't able magically to fix everything in 2 years (in no small part due to the Republicans having a stranglehold on the Senate), we instead decide to invite the same group of crooks back in to "fix" everything.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 5, 2011)

Ryan said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Under Obama, we have increased the debt far faster than ever before.
> ...


That's what I have read. Look here.

And here.

Simple question-are you better off now, after two years of all Democratic control, worse off, or the same?

I can say worse off. Things are not improving for us. Most of my family members are much worse off.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 5, 2011)

sunchaser said:


> Simple question-are you better off now, after two years of all Democratic control, worse off, or the same? I can say worse off. Things are not improving for us. Most of my family members are much worse off.


You just seem to be all over the map here. Are you trying to say that balancing the federal budget and paying off our national debt is going to improve the lives of your family members? If so, how?


----------



## jb64 (Jan 5, 2011)

Ryan said:


> pebbleworm said:
> 
> 
> > It's always interesting to read these dispatches from fantasy land! And kind of appalling how many out and out lies keep circulating as gospel truth. Combine slashing federal income with huge expenses for not one but two meaningless and un-winnable wars, AND deregulate the financial system to the point where it can be looted. And now to say that deregulation and tax cuts are the solution is like a drunk saying "Whiskey got me into this mess, whiskey will get me out!".
> ...


I love how rabid democratic supporters manipulate the numbers to hide their ineffectiveness. It hasn't been two years, Ryan, they(democrats) have been in control of the congress for four years and as Sunchaser has pointed out, most are worse off. The quote "in no small part due to the Republicans having a stranglehold on the Senate" cracks me up. What stranglehold? How many actual filibusters were there? Not many, only the threat of filibuster. Read any progressive blog ( I do) and you will see that a lot of democrat and left-leaning voters are disgusted with the so-called democrats who have exhibited no leadership, no spine, and have managed to only achieve those things that voters across the nation, according to polls, uniformly opposed (Obama-care or Affordable Care Act, anyone?)

Again, politicians, whether they be followed by an R or D, are a suspect group and generally behave the same way once they get to Washington. Just look at Obama's record versus his campaign rhetoric.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 5, 2011)

sunchaser said:


> That's what I have read. Look here.
> 
> And here.


None of that says anything about 20% pay increases.


> Simple question-are you better off now, after two years of all Democratic control, worse off, or the same?I can say worse off. Things are not improving for us. Most of my family members are much worse off.


I'm sorry for you an your family, then. Things are certainly looking up for my family and I.



jb64 said:


> How many actual filibusters were there? Not many, only the threat of filibuster.


Not many? I suggest that you look at the numbers again:






Not shown are the number of judicial holds and the like, which prevented many posts in the Judicial and Executive branch from being filled in a timely fashion.

I agree that the Democrats could have done a heck of a lot better. They had the votes for a middle class only tax cut, but "compromised" the store away to extend the cuts to millionaires and billionaires as well. They also refused to fight on the Public Option, when there seemed to be a real path towards success for it.


----------



## jb64 (Jan 5, 2011)

Ryan said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > That's what I have read. Look here.
> ...



Just like to point out two things: 1) you work and reside in the DC/Beltway area and have not felt the same effects of the economy as the rest of the country. 2) the graph you posted was for cloture, not filibuster and not quite the same thing.

That being said, this is supposed to be a forum about trains and I suppose we should all get back on topic. Just would like to add that today, as we watch coverage of the shift of power in the house, is an example of how great this country is as we have a peaceful transfer of power occuring, regardless of your political affiliation. Let us all hope that the Rs and Ds can work together and do the things this country needs.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 5, 2011)

Both Senators from Maine are Republican and both as warm to Amtrak, having never voted to cut it-- and advocating it in their home state.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 5, 2011)

jb64 said:


> What stranglehold?


*This Stranglehold...*



jb64 said:


> Again, politicians, whether they be followed by an R or D, are a suspect group and generally behave the same way once they get to Washington.


When I see one party electing officials who call for the _defending_ of Amtrak and another party electing officials calling for the _defunding_ of Amtrak I don't consider that to be identical behavior, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## PennCentralFan (Jan 5, 2011)

The tea party rhetoric is very unfriendly toward amtrak. I think it's fair to say that more Republicans are against amtrak than Democrats. I thank God Joe Biden who loves amtrak and Obama from Chicago are in the White house. The Bush administration wanted to kill amtrak. They didn't want to give any money to amtrak. John McCain hates amtrak and wants to destroy it.

Let's get real. Republicans are more anti-amtrak than Democrats. If you truly value train travel you must acknowledge that reality. If you are a Republican and like amtrak it's your duty to write and call and talk to your Republican leaders and elected officials about the need for amtrak. You can be a Republican and like amtrak, but you have a duty to re-educate those in the GOP who hate amtrak.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 5, 2011)

daxomni said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question-are you better off now, after two years of all Democratic control, worse off, or the same? I can say worse off. Things are not improving for us. Most of my family members are much worse off.
> ...


I'm not trying to be all over the map.

If we reduce our debt, it should bring down inflation. It certainly won't hurt us to reduce it. As inflation continues to rise, all of us pay more for everything we use. That means we have less to spend. If inflation is low, you have more to spend, more purchasing power.

As prices go up, we are spending more money for less items, including food.

That means there is less money for other things, clothing, gas, travel, etc.

This also works for your Employer. They have to figure inflation into things, too.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 5, 2011)

jb64 said:


> the graph you posted was for cloture, not filibuster and not quite the same thing.


It's a meaningless distinction without a difference. It still means that the Senate was sitting on bills and not acting on them.



sunchaser said:


> If we reduce our debt, it should bring down inflation. It certainly won't hurt us to reduce it. As inflation continues to rise, all of us pay more for everything we use. That means we have less to spend. If inflation is low, you have more to spend, more purchasing power.


I don't think that those two factors have the correlation that you think that they do:






Are you ready to agree that you were wrong on the 20% raise bit?


----------



## henryj (Jan 5, 2011)

Ryan, all I can say is if you think all those graphs have any meaning and that inflation will not occur after the enormous amount of money the fed has thrown into the system, just hide and watch dude.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 5, 2011)

I have for the last 2 years, and look what it brought us.

I'll take facts and history over hype and hand waving any day.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 6, 2011)

Ryan said:


> jb64 said:
> 
> 
> > the graph you posted was for cloture, not filibuster and not quite the same thing.
> ...


No. I'll just have to locate the info again. Back to trains...


----------



## AlanB (Jan 6, 2011)

daxomni said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > What I might suggest, for the moment, is adding up the US Senate first.
> ...


And therein lies the biggest problem. There was a reporter a while back who asked one of the leading Republican's who was just elected/reelected, what they were going to cut to reduce the deficit. The reporter mentioned 4 major programs including the military. Each time the Congressman said, "no, we won't cut that."

When the reporter then pointed out that even if Congress cut every other remaining program to zero that the deficit would still increase unless those 4 major programs were touched, the Congressman had no answer.

Unless we're willing to take cuts in all programs and willing to accept a tax increase, no one be it Republican's, Democrats, Independants, Tea Party, or any other group that might come along is going to be able to actually start cutting the deficit. And I don't see the public as being willing to accept both cuts and an increase in taxes at the same time.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 6, 2011)

Ryan said:


> jb64 said:
> 
> 
> > the graph you posted was for cloture, not filibuster and not quite the same thing.
> ...


One only invokes cloture to overcome a filibuster. If there is no filibuster ongoing, then one does not invoke cloture.

Put another way, cloture is the method by which the US Senate stops or overcomes a filibuster.

Therefore that graph represents the minimum number of filibusters within the Senate. And I say minimum, because there are times when a filibuster is started and the party in control either realizes that they don't have votes to overcome it or they decide that it's simply not worth the effort to try and overcome the filibuster. So the number of filibusters could actually be higher than the number of times cloture was invoked, but the number of filibusters can never be lower than the number of times that cloture was invoked.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 6, 2011)

Disclaimer: The last thing I want in the world is to see Amtrak's budget cut a single damned penny. If anyone responds to my post by stating "but you want to cut Amtrak's budget...", I swear to god I will hunt you down and shove a P42 all the way up your alimentary canal.

Now then, the argument that "cutting Amtrak's budget will do nothing to help our deficit" is a load of utter crap. Every penny helps. If we cut every single budget 20%, it will cut our costs by 20%, whether the individual agency or fiefdom spends $5 or $5 trillion.

"We can just end the war and we'll be fine." Hogwash. First of all, it will cost billions of dollars to end the war, it will cost us, I'd guess, 2 years worth of war spending to suddenly drop everything and leave. Is the war fiscally responsible? No, but stop clinging to ridiculous false ideas about the simplicity involved in changing the complex.

"Cutting 'x' will save us tons of money!" No, cutting x will save you whatever you cut from x.

Observe what is placed below:

T - P = D

Taxes - Cost of Programs = Deficit/Surplus. Period. End of discussion.

We have about 2 million different programs going in the government, and every single one of them is laughably inefficient. Every single one of them pays too much damned money for what they get.

To whit: I sell work gloves, and I sell really good quality work gloves, at very reasonable prices. I sell a really good quality dozen-set of brown Jerseys (simple gardening gloves) for about $5. My town currently pays $12.75 for a dozen of them, and from what I can tell they are lower quality than mine. I put in a bid for this year, and lost. They don't know my company well enough, you see.

We have a load of programs, most of which make no sense because they cost five times as much to run as they need to. We have a military, just as an example, beefing itself up with technology useful almost exclusively for fighting another large-scale enemy (read: another government) even while all the countries that could even put a dent in our current military scales down. Do we need this? I would tend to think not.

Privatizing everything wouldn't help, as the private sector would just become less efficient because they make more money that way.

No politician you elect is going to help. All things they are going to do in the coming two years are going to be for show, because tackling the real problem is actually a hard job. Spouting puffery is much easier, thanks.

The problem with our system, in summation? We have a stupid governmental design staffed by arrogant, self serving nincompoops, elected by the only thing in the world stupider than they are.

We have had this in place for over 200 years. We have gummed up the works so much so that the easier job, quite frankly, would be to dismantle the entire thing and start all the hell over again.

We want a self-less government staffed for self-less reasons, to do things for the betterment of everybody but itself. Name me 955 people (the absolute minimum number of people to run our constitutionally required government) that fit into that category. I can think of about five, and three of those are dead.


----------



## Pastor Dave (Jan 6, 2011)

?


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 6, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Disclaimer: The last thing I want in the world is to see Amtrak's budget cut a single damned penny. If anyone responds to my post by stating "but you want to cut Amtrak's budget...", I swear to god I will hunt you down and shove a P42 all the way up your alimentary canal.
> 
> Now then, the argument that "cutting Amtrak's budget will do nothing to help our deficit" is a load of utter crap. Every penny helps. If we cut every single budget 20%, it will cut our costs by 20%, whether the individual agency or fiefdom spends $5 or $5 trillion.
> 
> ...


Green Maned Lion!

Wow! I'm agreeing with you again! Will wonders never cease! Not totally, of course, but no worries. I do hope that nothing bad happens to Amtrak, but I'm not going to worry about it.

There are far too many other things that need fixing too & soon.


----------



## monorailfan (Jan 7, 2011)

GML - very well said.

I love Amtrak - but frankly, we should be so lucky that they are talking CUTS and not outright ELIMINATION.

We simply cannot keep printing money for all these programs, and that includes Amtrak.

Everything needs cuts - Military, SS, Medicare, NASA (that should just be shut down, and I LOVE NASA), and yes, Amtrak.

I have a fine job, but my benefits were just cut. As was stated elsewhere, we can no longer afford these programs nor the 'Benefits Apartheid' between government workers and everyone else who pays for the gov't workers. It's an ugly generalized term, but its true.

The good thing about this country is I can keep trying to get these cuts by my vote - throw the bums out enough times and sooner or later (might take a decade) they will get the message. And that is my hope- that the politians realize they can either do these cuts in a controlled manner, or wait until the world no longer buys our debt and the cuts are forced upon this country - and that will not be fun.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 7, 2011)

What would happen if Amtrak gave the existing equipment and stations to the railroads who provide the rails they run on, and mandate that they continue the service as in pre amtrak days with a government over site similar to what used to exist. That would put it back in the hands of the people who should have been providing the service in the first place and once again give some competition and perhaps even better service to some of the long distance routes. I doubt that most railroads would be overly burdened by providing passenger service again what with the greatly increased fare structure and tax right offs any loses my incur. It would be better than loosing the service altogether.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2011)

monorailfan said:


> the 'Benefits Apartheid' between government workers and everyone else who pays for the gov't workers. It's an ugly generalized term, but its true.


What exactly are you talking about here?



Larry H. said:


> What would happen if Amtrak gave the existing equipment and stations to the railroads who provide the rails they run on, and mandate that they continue the service as in pre amtrak days with a government over site similar to what used to exist. That would put it back in the hands of the people who should have been providing the service in the first place and once again give some competition and perhaps even better service to some of the long distance routes. I doubt that most railroads would be overly burdened by providing passenger service again what with the greatly increased fare structure and tax right offs any loses my incur. It would be better than loosing the service altogether.


I wasn't alive pre-Amtrak, but based on what I understand about passenger railroading pre-Amtrak, I would doubt that "better service" would be one of the results. What exactly has changed that makes you think that the conditions that brought about the creation of Amtrak no longer exist and that the freight RR's could do a better job? If there were really money to be made in doing it, there's nothing stopping them from trying it now, but I don't see a huge desire on the part of any of them to start hauling people around again. Turning things over to the free market isn't some magical cure that'll mysteriously make things better.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 7, 2011)

sunchaser said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > Are you trying to say that balancing the federal budget and paying off our national debt is going to improve the lives of your family members? If so, how?
> ...


Sunchaser, I think it's only prudent to stop you here and ask just what exactly you think the current inflation rate is?



sunchaser said:


> Wow! I'm agreeing with you again! Will wonders never cease! Not totally, of course, but no worries. I do hope that nothing bad happens to Amtrak, but I'm not going to worry about it. There are far too many other things that need fixing too & soon.


Wait, I thought we were going to hear about this 20% raise for government workers thing you said you were going to explain to us?


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2011)

daxomni said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! I'm agreeing with you again! Will wonders never cease! Not totally, of course, but no worries. I do hope that nothing bad happens to Amtrak, but I'm not going to worry about it. There are far too many other things that need fixing too & soon.
> ...


I'm holding my breath while she locates the source that says it exists. I'm really wildly curious who got it, because none of the government workers that I know (including my wife) sure as heck didn't get it.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 7, 2011)

Ryan said:


> monorailfan said:
> 
> 
> > the 'Benefits Apartheid' between government workers and everyone else who pays for the gov't workers. It's an ugly generalized term, but its true.
> ...


Hey Ryan, Nice to see your still here and busy..

What I am basically thinking is that if Republicans do indeed try to eliminate services or long distance trains that instead of leaving towns all over america in the lurch of no service, perhaps we should rethink the whole concept of the government saying they would provide passenger service. I realize your never going to relate to things pre amtrak and your basic assumptions are from todays operational standards, but there is a reason that the Santa Fe Railroad made amtrak stop using the Super Chief Name. The service and equipment no longer was up to their standards. I would say that was perhaps an exception, but most railroads in the west were still running trains that put any new consist amtrak has to shame in both service and quality of equipment. ( I know your going to rage on about the difference in times). So amtrak as you know it is as often said, a way to move people from here to there. But one of the first things they did was cut the already meager routes structure in half. To this day those links so important to passengers outside the east coast have never returned.

I don't pretend to know the complications or legalities of this idea. I am simply wondering out loud if anything along this line might work. For one thing you would be eliminating government bureaucrats from everyday operational decisions that hamper the quality of equipment and service. You would eliminate the congress from complaining about what kinds of service the roads offered. You would hopefully end the boring cookie cutter sameness of every long distance train. You might actually get some new ideas for services in order for the roads to encourage ridership.

I think I am envisioning a way to transfer what the government said it would run and never seems able to so without constant problems to people that probably know a lot more about it. I really wondered if a major percentage of the cost en cured by the railroads couldn't be a tax break for them to offset the cost instead of the tax payers paying it directly to the government with its inherent problems. I have no doubt that some sort of railroad regulation board would have to be put back in place to provide basic guide lines for operations of the services in a way that would prevent the railroads from repeating the "unfriendly" policies many did adopt when they wanted out of the service in the first place. That seems a stretch, but as you all say, times have and are changing. Gas on its way to 5.00 a gallon (partly thanks to our administration) is changing the publics perception of passenger rail and its option in getting places. It might be the right time for some competition if properly run and hopefully expanded might not have a chance of providing better service with better equipment at some point and keeping the cost lower than in the end days of privatized service.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 7, 2011)

Ryan said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > sunchaser said:
> ...


I think the issues with nearly all government workers is that over time they have been promised things that the people who pay for them never come near approaching as a benefit. I retired with a fraction of my weekly pay as a pension. My mom on the other hand retired over 35 years ago now and makes more today than she did when she worked. Those are hard to duplicate in the private sector. At least among regular workers, who are not CEO's or lawyers or bankers. The worst part of the government systems I now see is the unwilling attitude when it comes to sharing in the downturn as if the unions have total control of the decision, not us the employers.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 7, 2011)

Larry H. said:


> I realize [you're] never going to relate to things [pre-Amtrak] and your basic assumptions are from [today's] operational standards, but there is a reason that the Santa Fe Railroad made [Amtrak] stop using the Super Chief Name. The service and equipment no longer was up to their standards.


I'd say the Amtrak service with slow and generic but _actually functioning_ trains is a far better standard than a ghost train that never runs anymore. You seem to be confusing private vs. government operation with the massive changes in options and demographics that occurred during the demise of the golden age of passenger rail. I don't want Amtrak to become a tiny sliver of a railroad that only runs in the North East. Nor do I want Amtrak to become a nostalgic tourist railroad that runs ridiculously opulent trains for the wealthy anywhere they care to go. I want Amtrak to evolve into a world-class passenger network capable of competing with the best that other nations have already built. Maybe you miss the long forgotten Super Chief but I miss the fast and efficient trains that run _today_ in places like Japan and Germany. I don't see Super Chief levels of customer service coming from any national network today. Nor do I see old world service and luxury oozing out of today's enormous freight conglomerates here in America. Which is just as well I suppose since I see no interest from them for restarting nationwide passenger service, tax funded or otherwise.

So, to recap...

+ Super Chief style service isn't coming back. It was a product of a completely different age.

+ Rather than focusing on opulence and variety we should focus on speed and efficiency.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a return to old world service and charm from several different lines all doing their best to stand out from the crowd. But that day is done. No other country of any size or significance seems to have pulled off what you're suggesting and I don't see a huge cry for it from current or potential customers either.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2011)

Dax pretty much hits it on the head.



Larry H. said:


> I don't pretend to know the complications or legalities of this idea. I am simply wondering out loud if anything along this line might work. For one thing you would be eliminating government bureaucrats from everyday operational decisions that hamper the quality of equipment and service. You would eliminate the congress from complaining about what kinds of service the roads offered. You would hopefully end the boring cookie cutter sameness of every long distance train. You might actually get some new ideas for services in order for the roads to encourage ridership.


I think that what you would end up with would be exactly like Amtrak, with another layer of bureaucracy to add to the waste and slightly different standards/interpretations of the rules by each RR that would simply solidify the already-inconsistent Amtrak experience. I don't think that you'd ever get the roads to sign up for what would be a money losing experience, and so the future of passenger rail is in Amtrak (or some other form of government controlled entity).
I think that the root of our disagreement is that you see government as inefficient and bad and the free market as efficient and good. I see private industry as having their primary duty towards their shareholders and not consumers, whereas the government is at least nominally supposed to be operating with all of our best interests in mind. In reality, life is somewhere between the two - companies have to at least keep the consumers happy, and government can be very much as GML described above.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 7, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> We want a self-less government staffed for self-less reasons, to do things for the betterment of everybody but itself. Name me 955 people (the absolute minimum number of people to run our constitutionally required government) that fit into that category. I can think of about five, and three of those are dead.


I agree with most of what you said (stop the presses!). I'll nit-pick this part, though. There are thousands of people out there who fit the above description (certainly more than five). The issue is that, for the vast majority of them, they are too intellectually honest to run a campaign that would enable themselves to get elected. The folks that get elected today are the ones who lie to the public by saying they can balance the budget, fix the economy, lower taxes, and not cut "important" programs.

The best quote I can think of to describe the problem comes from the late Douglas Adams in one of his hitchhiker books:



> The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.


Unfortunately, we have a large faction of elected officials who demonize the government (while failing to point out the irony that they are part of the government they are attacking; further, few citizens seem to realize that if they say government is incapable of doing this or that, they are essentially insulting themselves because it is their responsibility to vote and play a role in who is in government). These insults on government workers, other elected officials, etc., only serve to discourage those who are both smart and honest enough to make a difference. Therefore, they stay away. Those that do try and run stand no chance of being elected.

Think about it. Candidate A says, "Look. We're deep in debt. We obviously can't afford the standard of living to which we're all accustomed. We all need to make some sacrifices to get out of this mess. For the wealthy, that means giving up a bit more of your money in taxes to cover our budget. For others, it means accepting a bit less in services and benefits. It's not going to be pretty, but it's the only logical, sure way out of this mess."

Candidate B says, "SOCIALIST! He wants to take YOUR money and cut YOUR benefits. He wants to make government bigger by raising taxes, but refuses to cut wasteful spending and pork. Instead, he wants to get rid of stuff you need. I won't do either. I will keep your tax rates low, and won't cut any important programs. I'll go after the pork that the Washington Insiders waste your money on."

People are gullible enough to believe Candidate B, and obviously Candidate B's message is going to be more popular. It makes people feel good, it promises everything is going to be fine and dandy and nobody has to sacrifice anything. Anybody who is intellectually honest does not stand a chance against those who act like Candidate B. Further, virtually nowhere in the media do you hear people talking about the basic facts as presented in Candidate A's position. All you hear about are the "big spending" politicians and government waste (which never comes with a definition of what, specifically, is waste), and others who want to cut taxes. Then you've got those afraid that if we spend another dollar, the country will go insolvent tomorrow. They still don't have a real solution, just a bunch of whining and hand-wringing.

As long as people don't realize what the true problems are (which really are matters of basic arithmetic more than anything else), they will never see the need for a real solution.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2011)

I'd like to nominate that for post of the year (the Douglas Adams reference puts it over the top).

Well done!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 7, 2011)

I liked the way South Park said it better... but good job overall.


----------



## Eric S (Jan 7, 2011)

Larry H. said:


> What I am basically thinking is that if Republicans do indeed try to eliminate services or long distance trains that instead of leaving towns all over america in the lurch of no service, perhaps we should rethink the whole concept of the government saying they would provide passenger service. I realize your never going to relate to things pre amtrak and your basic assumptions are from todays operational standards, but there is a reason that the Santa Fe Railroad made amtrak stop using the Super Chief Name. The service and equipment no longer was up to their standards. I would say that was perhaps an exception, but most railroads in the west were still running trains that put any new consist amtrak has to shame in both service and quality of equipment. ( I know your going to rage on about the difference in times). So amtrak as you know it is as often said, a way to move people from here to there. But one of the first things they did was cut the already meager routes structure in half. To this day those links so important to passengers outside the east coast have never returned.
> 
> I don't pretend to know the complications or legalities of this idea. I am simply wondering out loud if anything along this line might work. For one thing you would be eliminating government bureaucrats from everyday operational decisions that hamper the quality of equipment and service. You would eliminate the congress from complaining about what kinds of service the roads offered. You would hopefully end the boring cookie cutter sameness of every long distance train. You might actually get some new ideas for services in order for the roads to encourage ridership.
> 
> I think I am envisioning a way to transfer what the government said it would run and never seems able to so without constant problems to people that probably know a lot more about it. I really wondered if a major percentage of the cost en cured by the railroads couldn't be a tax break for them to offset the cost instead of the tax payers paying it directly to the government with its inherent problems. I have no doubt that some sort of railroad regulation board would have to be put back in place to provide basic guide lines for operations of the services in a way that would prevent the railroads from repeating the "unfriendly" policies many did adopt when they wanted out of the service in the first place. That seems a stretch, but as you all say, times have and are changing. Gas on its way to 5.00 a gallon (partly thanks to our administration) is changing the publics perception of passenger rail and its option in getting places. It might be the right time for some competition if properly run and hopefully expanded might not have a chance of providing better service with better equipment at some point and keeping the cost lower than in the end days of privatized service.


The Canadian/VIA Rail model might be somewhat instructive here. It's my understanding that Canada essentially tried what you are suggesting in the 1970s, subsidizing CN & CP to provide passenger service. (I realize that CN was not private at the time, but CP was and is.) However, all parties (government, CN, CP) eventually found the Amtrak/VIA Rail model (separate semi-public ownership & operation of passenger service) to be preferrable.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 7, 2011)

daxomni said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > I realize [you're] never going to relate to things [pre-Amtrak] and your basic assumptions are from [today's] operational standards, but there is a reason that the Santa Fe Railroad made [Amtrak] stop using the Super Chief Name. The service and equipment no longer was up to their standards.
> ...


My point is simply based on the prospect that if they were to follow though on a threat to end passenger rail on most of the system would a possible way be found to return the obligation to what now are freight rail roads. I don't think I am asking for nor suggesting tourist trains, or luxury service, but service that extends to more places with comfortable trains.. You all seem so bent on defending what has become a rather boring and stagnate system that any suggestions that don't meet a cookie cutter government system are dismissed. I find it very difficult to figure out where when I proposed that we should have widely expanded systems to only wishing limited service. If anything I have consistently lobbied for a net work that serves many more locations in more directions than the current very inconvenient system. How one could think that amtrak meets that criteria is beyond me? As to my point of the Super Chief it was in response to Rayans contention that amtrak is better than the existing trains they took over. Variety again is a matter of consideration of something that would perhaps come as it does with airlines from each having its own distinctive interiors or exteriors. Not something meant to be extravagant.

I am not saying this is something is likely, I am only posing a question of which is worse, no service or trying to find a way to return operation to the railroads with requirements to maintain current or better levels of service.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2011)

Larry H. said:


> As to my point of the Super Chief it was in response to Rayans contention that amtrak is better than the existing trains they took over.


Woah, hold on a second. Lets make sure that we're on the same page here (and again, Amtrak's nearly 10 years older than I am, so I'm going on what I've read). I certainly realize that in some limited cases (the Super Chief being one of them) that Amtrak is a step down from what existed in the late '60's, and is certainly a step down from the passenger trains from the golden age of rail transport. However, from everything that I've read, it's a vast step up from most of what was running in the 5 years before A-Day. True statement?


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 7, 2011)

To answer Larry H's question, I'll say there is absolutely no way whatsoever that you would ever see the freight railroads mandated to provide passenger service on their own dime (without subsidy). There is no way in hell they would accept such a mandate. Further, the politicians that generally want to cut Amtrak service tend to also be those that are in favor of large corporations, and would not burden them with the requirement of a money-losing operation.

The quality of the service provided, either today or 40 years ago, or the blandness/attractiveness of the trains themselves doesn't have anything to do with it. The economics of passenger transportation are such that there is no incentive for the railroads to get into the business on their own. Those that are in the passenger business (such as BNSF/UP with their commuter contracts) receive subsidies to operate the service. Clearly, if a politician wants to shut down passenger rail to save money, they're not going to just redirect that money to someone else to provide the same service.

There is nothing stopping BNSF from operating their own Southwest Chief/Super Chief today. Nothing, that is, except the fact that BNSF tends not to like to do things that lose them tons of money.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 7, 2011)

Ryan,

I think from going back an checking that you said "I would doubt that "better service" would be one of the results," I will say that many railroads were not crazy or supportive of passengers and I rode and have told stories about quite a number of them. But they did still for the most part operate a first class pullman operated section. For the most part they still had food prepared on board, often better and sometimes worse that what is now available. They normally ran trains with sufficient equipment to fill passenger needs and not be constantly forcing passengers to buy room months in advance to be able to get one. The prices were the same to all not dependent on constant changes in price depending on load factors so you always knew how much it cost to go from point A to point B. Much of the equipment was very customized so that taking a name train meant something and made the trip more of a pleasure. Many trains on long distance routes had both a coach and first class lounge. Weather cancelations were much rarer. On time performance was something many prided them selves in maintaining. Those are just some of the things that even at the end of service were pretty much offered, at least in western and east coast runs, and probably the crescent, panama limited, city of los angles, empire builder, super chief, twentieth century limited, silver star, national limited, and many others.

I was on board the Empire Builder the week they put up the notice of pending end of service and turning the train over to Amtrak. It was totally beautifully run with pride. But the company had none the less a penchant for discouraging ridership. Thus trains that might have actually had a passenger demand were running nearly empty. We tried to book a room out of Seattle and were told it was sold out. That was the day before it ran. After several tries the ticket man in Vancouver told us to buy a ticket to just outside seattle and when the train arrived to ask the conductor for a room. When we boarded the train we found an almost empty train with no less that four sleepers. It was practice of the company evidently to tell customers there were no available space in order to make the trains look like no one wanted to ride them.. It was very telling. But even with those points, the level of many trains service was still operating as the above paragraph. Yes some had lousy food and dirty cars with no water, I rode those too. Sure amtrak was an improvement to those. However for many it been a slow slide from where they were to where they are now.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 7, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> To answer Larry H's question, I'll say there is absolutely no way whatsoever that you would ever see the freight railroads mandated to provide passenger service on their own dime (without subsidy). There is no way in hell they would accept such a mandate. Further, the politicians that generally want to cut Amtrak service tend to also be those that are in favor of large corporations, and would not burden them with the requirement of a money-losing operation.
> 
> The quality of the service provided, either today or 40 years ago, or the blandness/attractiveness of the trains themselves doesn't have anything to do with it. The economics of passenger transportation are such that there is no incentive for the railroads to get into the business on their own. Those that are in the passenger business (such as BNSF/UP with their commuter contracts) receive subsidies to operate the service. Clearly, if a politician wants to shut down passenger rail to save money, they're not going to just redirect that money to someone else to provide the same service.
> 
> There is nothing stopping BNSF from operating their own Southwest Chief/Super Chief today. Nothing, that is, except the fact that BNSF tends not to like to do things that lose them tons of money.



Indeed I was suggesting a tax write off for much of the cost to the railroads so that they would not be burdened with excessive cost. Government has tended to privatize things when it suits them. I do however disagree about the "blandness/attractiveness" argument. I just read a report about the fact that for most airlines on the continent that they had indeed made them more of a one class system to save or make money. But that nearly any airline wishing to attract business for long distance overseas routes was offering luxury or comfortable accommodations such as sleeping compartments in order to compete for that business. I am not inclined to agree that the kind of service, and quality of surroundings don't make a possible difference in passenger load or return business. Sure with prices of gas higher you can fill the small train consist or maybe even some larger ones with people wishing to save money. But my guess is that the customers who are looking for something a bit nicer are not riding or when they do are not returning. Cruise Ships are not creating ever fancier surroundings for no reason. People are still customers and the most basic of service will not ever carry as many people as one that appeals to all.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 7, 2011)

As I understand it, that's about right...and it's probably quite a good bit better than what was running during the Penn Central disaster, when all of the nicer trains the NY Central had been running got dropped. The problem is that the railroads spent the 1960s trying to dump a lot of passenger services, in no small part because they couldn't raise fares to cover costs (and then because the mail contracts got dropped under LBJ).

The truth is that the only thing that probably should have been done differently that arguably could have been is that Amtrak should've been given the rights to a lot of routes that were dropped in the 1960s. There are a lot of railroads that probably would've swallowed that without too much complaint given the situation...and a lot of those routes _were_ cut back in an attempt to reduce the cost of joining Amtrak (the trains to Des Moines fall into this category, as does the mess that the Sunset Limited has been...though in the latter case, Southern Pacific was trying to kill that route for a long time, and its successors don't seem to have given up on that).

Amtrak has two main problems. The first is that they more or less have to beg their way onto new tracks and pay an arm and a leg for it, and the second is that they have to focus on impractical objectives to keep the public interested. Would a 225 MPH train from somewhere to somewhere else be nice? Sure, but it's not practical in terms of value for money.

As it stands, a lot of the states willing to subsidize service should consider using eminent domain to get Amtrak increased access easements to workable routes (Bakersfield-LA leaps to mind as a candidate here, as does the daily Sunset Limited). I think this can be sold as being cheaper than the ED for building or widening a comparable freeway, and more viable than bus service (I read an article touting Megabus from Iowa City to Chicago instead of the train that's going in, and it mentioned the $1 tickets...while conveniently omitting the limited number of those tickets available and that those prices are _far_ more variable and _far_ harder to change if you miss a connection)...it's certainly what the pitch is coming across as in Virginia in a few cases (the Lynchburger in particular has received this treatment...partly because "option B" would be pouring money into Rt. 29).

The other thing Amtrak needs to focus on is raising average speeds where it can...that extra 10 MPH on the Acela's top speed is a waste of money compared to, say, straightening out 50-60 MPH stretches on the same route. The money they're looking to spend on faster Acelas is a relative waste of resources compared to comparable spending either expanding the fleet with more or less extant designs (where capacity is an issue) or with relatively simple improvements to trackage...or building/buying trackage they own outright or in conjunction with local transit companies, in some cases.

Is there room for service improvement? Yes, definitely, particularly along the NEC (where you've got the Boston-Newport News and New York-Savannah runs with the same meal service as the Washington-New York runs) and attached routes (the ones to Canada leap to mind), and probably on some other medium-distance runs. I think the problem here is probably not having a "mid-distance" category that has slightly improved service (even if it's just an expanded cafe service) over the short runs and the _really _long runs. They're adding WiFi on their routes over the next few years, which is another big upgrade. The other thing would be _some_ sort of ability to change trains to the Acela on the same ticket...I know why this is the case, but even simply raising the "buffer" time for a guaranteed connection to an Acela those tickets or only guaranteeing connections _from_ the Acela.

Another note I'll make: I take a sleeper WAS-CHI when I'm going to Iowa. If I had to do that run in coach strictly on a heated meatball sub? That run would not happen, and I'd either drive (unpleasant in the winter) or fly (unpleasant, period). The availability of comfortable accommodations makes a big difference.

While I'm at this wall of text, I figure I'll make another point: One of the big reasons that railroads aren't going to get back into the passenger business is that even if they were _guaranteed_ break-even operating subsidies for upgraded lines, the sheer cost of upgrading the relevant long distance lines plus buying the equipment involved would run into the billions of dollars. A competent business is not going to spend billions of dollars to do all of this for a very weak return on investment plus added union hassles.

With that said, there's actually talk coming out of Carlos Slim down in Mexico of investing in a rebuilt passenger system there. That suggests that at least _something_ is possible, and it's not impossible that Amtrak could link into that system if it gets built (much as they did with the old system via El Paso...and right there, you could sell the service on a smoother customs operation than you get at the border or the airport in most cases...not less invasive, but smoother).


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 7, 2011)

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.. Very interesting.

One thought, Why did the railroad purchase all that rather attractive equipment after the war if passengers were something they didn't want? Why were there ads in all the magazines about which lines to ride for the best service and equipment or scenery?

Sure the bottom fell out as mentioned partly due to airlines and partly due to the highway system. But if were truly rail advocates then this is the time when the possible may be about to return in terms of the desire of passengers to again use rail service. The ridership has grown yearly for some time now, yet equipment has not kept up. We know why, no argument there, but it might be at some point with the price of gas and totally dysfunctional air service that well run trains might indeed create a new demand, maybe ones they built those new trains for?


----------



## Anderson (Jan 7, 2011)

Larry H. said:


> Thanks for a thoughtful reply.. Very interesting.
> 
> One thought, Why did the railroad purchase all that rather attractive equipment after the war if passengers were something they didn't want? Why were there ads in all the magazines about which lines to ride for the best service and equipment or scenery?
> 
> Sure the bottom fell out as mentioned partly due to airlines and partly due to the highway system. But if were truly rail advocates then this is the time when the possible may be about to return in terms of the desire of passengers to again use rail service. The ridership has grown yearly for some time now, yet equipment has not kept up. We know why, no argument there, but it might be at some point with the price of gas and totally dysfunctional air service that well run trains might indeed create a new demand, maybe ones they built those new trains for?


In the immediate post-war era, railroads were expecting a return to travel patterns either in the immediate prewar era or similar to that of the 1920s. They planned accordingly. Mind you, many of the services were at least breaking even as late as the early 60s, when the mail contracts got dropped...you could make up for a lot of losses in the passenger department with profitable mail service. That said, there was a general expectation that services would at least "hold their ground". When this didn't happen, those investments became a problem.

There's another side to this, too: A lot of those upgrades replaced older equipment that had to be phased out...notably steam engines. The Depression and WW2 caused a lot of upgrades to be put off, much as was the case in Britain...we just didn't have the track maintenance problems added on top (I've got one estimate that the maintenance backlog in Britain was £11 billion by 1945...at least in current pounds), so the system didn't collapse outright. But those fancy new diesel trains were replacing older steam models, and the railroads presumably went for "this will sell to the public" while doing those delayed upgrades to their systems.

The other problem was the ICC: Fixed rates made sense when inflation wasn't a long-term issue, which was more or less the case up until WW2. You'd have gyrations in prices, but in general, your only big price shift in the period was during WW1 (when inflation got a bit out of hand just about everywhere...but the railroads were also largely nationalized and prices raised during this period, anyway). Postwar, a fixed $20 fare from A-B steadily lost value...especially from '45-'53, when inflation averaged about 5%. The ICC simply didn't let the fares keep up. For what it's worth, airlines were also slapped by this...airline deregulation was in no small part a result of the inability of authorized fare hikes to keep up with galloping inflation.

Actually, this brings up a practical question: With as much money as the post office is losing, I'm wondering if it wouldn't make sense for them to return to contracting with Amtrak and start phasing out at least part of their fleet of aircraft and scaling back truck operations. The wild gyrations in fuel cost _have_ to be killing them, and there's no sign that things will improve on that front...and first class mail could (as much as I hate to say) probably drop in speed without losing much business considering that just about anything important either gets emailed or sent priority anyway. The main "problem" would be sacking thousands of postal employees...but they're getting to that point as it is, even without this option.

As to the current system, the problem is that in spite of the relative costs for building highways, it is easier to explain putting two lanes on an expressway than it is to explain "you drive to the station and then a train takes you to where you're going". Some of this is people wanting their cars on hand, but some is also a bit of cognitive dissonance...we're starting to get to the point that the train is cheaper than gas for driving an average car on some routes, full stop (At a $124 round trip, RVR-NYP breaks even for me at about $3.50/gal once you throw in all of the trolls). I think the subsidy to get the Lynchburger going compared favorably to a mile or two of new expressway, for another example, but somehow having the government spend $100 million on a road is "worse" than spending $20 million on a train.

This itself creates a sort of dissonance that never hit me before: It is to our advantage _not_ to have automotive fuel economy standards improved, as inefficient cars will push people back to the train in at least some instances. As best I can tell, in an Escape hybrid, that break even point moves from $3.50 (in a Crown Victoria) to $4.75.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 7, 2011)

We go over this every couple of months. Amtrak is not a cruise. Cruise ships go for extravagance because the experience is all they sell. For the most part (there are a few exceptions, just as everything else in life) cruise ships are not transportation. You start at point A, and when you're done, you're back to point A.

There already are rail-based land cruises in North America. These are privately run. Some make a profit. Others have gone out of business. Running regularly scheduled luxury service was tried a few years ago, tacking some of those ex-American Orient Express cars onto the back of Amtrak trains (a private company ran those cars). They didn't make any money at it, and the service was stopped.

Long-haul airliners charge boatloads of money for their luxury first-class service. Those fares are generally paid by business people on expense accounts, for whom the cost of the fare is but a blip in their/their company's bank account. These folks, in general, aren't going to spend three days going across the country on Amtrak when they could spend six hours on a plane.

What the railroads did in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s isn't really that relevant, because yes, the world has in fact changed (significantly) since then. They offered high-quality service back then because they had to do so to differentiate themselves from the competition. Fares were regulated back then, so they couldn't compete on price. They had to compete on something else. The same was true for the airlines back then. Both have since been deregulated. In the airline industry, the fares have dropped like a rock, and so has service. Few airlines trying to offer a high-quality domestic experience have succeeded in doing so. One-by-one, the domestic airline perks were dropped in favor of lower fares.

On the rail side, had Amtrak not been created (and pretending, for a moment, that the railroads had somehow managed to continue running passenger trains, and actually wanted to do so, neither of which is true), the same would have happened on trains. Whatever perceived luxury that existed would be cut to save a buck, and you'd eventually wind up with something similar to Amtrak today anyway. A utilitarian service, with basic sleeping accommodations on overnight trains, basic food service, and relatively low fares.

Of course, it's impossible to speculate exactly how that would all have played out, because it's a history that did not happen based on assumptions that clearly weren't true.

In order to get the railroads to operate Amtrak's long-distance network, you would have to compensate them for their losses. If you give them tax credits (they would have to be fully refundable tax credits, not "tax deductions" like other charitable contributions are), then, mathematically, you are essentially paying them the same as you'd be paying Amtrak to do exactly the same thing.

On top of all that, today's railroads do not have any experience in the passenger business (except, as I mentioned earlier, for a couple of railroads that contract with commuter operators; and even then that is limited to providing engineers and conductors, and maybe some maintenance). They do not have a reservation/ticketing system. They do not have a customer service department set up to handle individual complaints. They have little in the way of an on-board service staff (the railroads own business cars that are staffed, including chefs, but that is far from having an entire department full of people dedicated to providing service to customers). They don't have a mechanical department set up to maintain anything except engines and boxcars (with the exception, again, of a small staff that work on their tiny fleet of business cars, and I'm assuming they don't contract that out to someone else). Maintaining a passenger car takes a considerably different type of expertise than maintaining a freight car.

Now, each railroad would have to duplicate each of those functions, providing even more overhead costs, which would add even more to the required subsidy. Then again, I suppose they could get together and create some kind of consolidated company to handle reservations, customer service, equipment maintenance, etc., so they don't have to duplicate each of those functions on a limited basis. Wait, we already have that. It's called Amtrak.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 7, 2011)

spacecadet said:


> Meanwhile, the Republicans just added hundreds of billions to the deficit by extending tax cuts for the wealthy


At the risk of being too political for this site, but this thread so far is almost pure politics, this "tax cuts for the wealthy" is one of the phoniest straw men in the whole discussion. Look u pand find out what percentage of the total this really means. It is very small. Getting serious about fraud in the various welfare programs would do a lot more to really improve the government's financial picture.

A big problem is also balance of payments. If we could cut our imports in petroleum alone in half the benefits would be huge. Second, start looking at the "made in whereever" on the back of the things you are buying. If you can't find US, at least go for something made in Canada, Mexico, or some other country where the money would be of more positive benfit to our onw interests.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 7, 2011)

George Harris said:


> At the risk of being too political for this site, but this thread so far is almost pure politics, this "tax cuts for the wealthy" is one of the phoniest straw men in the whole discussion.


According to the figures I read the only people who would suffer a net _increase_ in their tax liability from the most recent round of extended tax "cuts" were individuals making less than $20K and households making less than $40K. But feel free to call them "tax cuts for the poor" if it makes you feel better George. If you think the amount we could tax the rich is "small" then maybe you should post whatever number you think it is so we can decide for ourselves if it's small or not. You talk about welfare waste, and I agree that's important. Personal welfare benefits were cut during both the Clinton and Bush years so maybe we should start with all the _corporate welfare_ that hasn't been seriously cut in at least a generation or two. I'd love to be buying American as much as possible but it turns out that most American distributors and retailers have apparently decided I don't really need that option anymore, at any price. Oh well, I'm sure they had a good reason to export our jobs just as I'm sure our government had a good reason for rewarding their outsourcing initiatives and off-shore addresses with tax reductions and regulatory loopholes. But please don't stop the music George, I'm almost nostalgic for the funky beats and hilarious vocals of the _Trickle-Down Voodoo Blues_.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 7, 2011)

I am going to hazard a counterpoint to what Trogdor mentioned. Starting in the mid-1960s, I believe there was a concerted effort to kill off passenger rail by a number of the lines. I can cite the Sunset Limited situation in particular (service was cut back to vending machines in an attempt to drive down ridership and then they asked to drop the line), and I'd be shocked if it was an outlier. It's true that there were a couple of routes that were retained post-Amtrak (the Denver-SLC run and the Crescent being the two most prominent examples) out of either pride or the fact that there _were_ some runs that, if not profitable, provided enough prestige to justify their presence, but these were exceptions.

There were four things that brought the system crashing down:

1) The most obvious is the drop in ridership due to competition from the highway system and airlines. No surprise there; a lot of that was coming no matter what.

2) The least obvious is the fare situation. This problem forced airline deregulation in the 70s, so it's not shocking that it was part of the problem with the railroads.

3) Somewhat non-obvious but mentioned above is the attempt by the railroads to force some losing lines out of existence. I think you can make a case that these moves made the drop in ridership substantially higher than it would have been otherwise...mind you, I'm talking about the floor being 18-20m rather than being in the 15m range, not enough to save the system.

4) In the middle of all of this is the well-known Penn Central cluster-you-know-what. The Pennsylvania/NY Central merger could _possibly _have worked on its own (there are no guarantees here), but when the NYNH&H got thrown on top of the heap, the system's fate was sealed. Of course, even the Penn Central's presence resulted in the killing of a number of luxury trains because it removed most of the East Coast-Chicago competition.

Now, if we turn to the prospect of some sort of private system, I think there are_ three _cases that might work on paper:

1) The NEC. There's been talk, at least in passing, of splitting the NEC into its own company. I strongly suspect that splitting won't happen because of its impact on Amtrak as a whole, and nobody else is going to jump in because Amtrak has the economies of scale in the region to push anyone else out.

2) Las Vegas-Los Angeles. Let's ignore the Desert Express nonsense for a moment and assume that you were to run a direct LA-LV limited, with maybe one or two more stops in the LA area. This line actually has theoretical potential, particularly if you could negotiate casino sponsorships and so on. The risk, of course, is that Amtrak would run its own train and then you'd get into a competition between a government-sponsored line and a non-sponsored line. This would not end well for anyone.

3) NEC-Chicago service. This is the other exception, but you'd need to shave a couple of hours off the trip each way to make it work...I think you'd need to knock the old 16 hour Limited service down to 14-15 hours to make it a really good sell for businesses today (15 hours translates into 14 hours on a clock westbound and 16 eastbound due to the timezone change). Again, this would be up against Amtrak right now, and you would need to nearly double fare revenues to get close to break-even _after_ the current PIPs are enacted.

Honestly, let's call the combined NEC services and Chicago services ConTrak (after Amtrak and Conrail). ConTrak could work on its own with at least some of the losses on the Chicago-bound routes covered by profits on the NEC, but you're still looking at a net loser. With another few years of increasing ridership on the non-NEC routes attached (the Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, etc.), CenTrak might even get to the point that it would be barely viable with some subsidy help...*but this would exclude the remainder of Amtrak's system, which would still be chalking up now-expanded losses due to dropping its most profitable segment.* I bold to get across the point that this would be deckchair rearrangement on the losses, not an actual improvement. So in essence, we're left with one route that _might_ work in a very big country. One exception does not a policy make.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2011)

George Harris said:


> Look u pand find out what percentage of the total this really means. It is very small.


Yet the proportion of income that they make (and therefore the portion of taxes revenues) are ridiculously large. The top 1% of Americans control approximately 1/3 of all the wealth in this country. The next 19% account for nearly half, leaving bottom 80% of us to split up the remaining 1/6th of the wealth (and the gap is growing by leaps and bounds).


> Getting serious about fraud in the various welfare programs would do a lot more to really improve the government's financial picture.


How much money is wasted in welfare fraud, and how does that compare to the size of the deficit? If you're going to complain about it, I'll assume that you know what you're talking about.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 7, 2011)

Larry H. said:


> Ryan,
> 
> I think from going back an checking that you said "I would doubt that "better service" would be one of the results," I will say that many railroads were not crazy or supportive of passengers and I rode and have told stories about quite a number of them. But they did still for the most part operate a first class pullman operated section. For the most part they still had food prepared on board, often better and sometimes worse that what is now available. They normally ran trains with sufficient equipment to fill passenger needs and not be constantly forcing passengers to buy room months in advance to be able to get one. The prices were the same to all not dependent on constant changes in price depending on load factors so you always knew how much it cost to go from point A to point B. Much of the equipment was very customized so that taking a name train meant something and made the trip more of a pleasure. Many trains on long distance routes had both a coach and first class lounge. Weather cancelations were much rarer. On time performance was something many prided them selves in maintaining. Those are just some of the things that even at the end of service were pretty much offered, at least in western and east coast runs, and probably the crescent, panama limited, city of los angles, empire builder, super chief, twentieth century limited, silver star, national limited, and many others.
> 
> I was on board the Empire Builder the week they put up the notice of pending end of service and turning the train over to Amtrak. It was totally beautifully run with pride. But the company had none the less a penchant for discouraging ridership. Thus trains that might have actually had a passenger demand were running nearly empty. We tried to book a room out of Seattle and were told it was sold out. That was the day before it ran. After several tries the ticket man in Vancouver told us to buy a ticket to just outside seattle and when the train arrived to ask the conductor for a room. When we boarded the train we found an almost empty train with no less that four sleepers. It was practice of the company evidently to tell customers there were no available space in order to make the trains look like no one wanted to ride them.. It was very telling. But even with those points, the level of many trains service was still operating as the above paragraph. Yes some had lousy food and dirty cars with no water, I rode those too. Sure amtrak was an improvement to those. However for many it been a slow slide from where they were to where they are now.


Sure. And in the 1950s, many of those same railroads had cars where in our own President couldn't ride with the majority of passengers. Cadillacs came with 400CI V8s. GM was the largest company on earth. People believed that Russia had some reason to simply launch nuclear weapons into suburbia to vaporize us all. (Thus eliminating any attraction for conquering us- doh!) And my dad walked to school, barefoot, in the snow, uphill both ways.

Times change. The world changes. Ways of doing things change, now and forever. We don't travel that way, Larry.

Amtrak is more luxurious, more customer service oriented, and more individual than ANY of our domestic airlines. You want more? What do you want Amtrak to be, Larry, a time capsule? A theme park to some delusional remembrance of the idealism of the 1960s? Remember to include a Woodstock car for free lovers, and add pot and LSD to the menu options!

The world you are talking about never existed. You are looking to bring back small, selected good portions about it, none of the bad, and to the expense of practicality and reason.

Today isn't worse than yesteryear, Larry. It is merely different. I might not travel on super luxury trains, but I freely am friends with quite a few people who are of different ethnic origin than myself.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 7, 2011)

daxomni said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > daxomni said:
> ...


Do you really care what I think the inflation rate is? Or are you just trying to pull my chain?

The official inflation rate may show very low, but every time we go to the store, it costs more than it did last time. We pretty much buy the exact same things every time, so it's not like we're getting luxury items.

We actually spent more for Christmas this year & got way less.

After looking over lots of info in between my normal routines, I didn't locate the link I was looking for. However,

I did find this one. It requires personal info from the person looking for their pay increase. Add in the 'pay raise' on top.

I may have misread it somewhere.

Federal workers do make much more than the private sector, as you can read here. (Did I post this one before?)

I don't really care how much of a raise someone gets, as long as you're worth it.

My issue is that if we as a country are in a deep hole financially, why should Federal workers get raises? If it's that bad, nobody in the Govt employ should get any increase. Why higher than servicemen & servicewomen?

What about people on SSI, or the disabled, or the Veterans? They haven't gotten any increase for two years, (except for a check once) but Fed employees still got raises? I know, I know, it's because of the 'low inflation rate'.

Tell that to the ones who are trying to make ends meet, & can't work.

Sorry, I'm really trying not to be cranky.

I think I better stay off this subject for now.


----------



## monorailfan (Jan 7, 2011)

"Ryan, all I can say is if you think all those graphs have any meaning and that inflation will not occur after the enormous amount of money the fed has thrown into the system, just hide and watch dude."

Ryan is correct here. Inflation is not the issue. The Fed has been printing tons of money, but it has been unable to keep up with withdrawal and destruction of credit. Credit destuction has been far more massive than what the Fed can repair via the printing presses - however, printing does cause other issues

The main problem is that the .gov will be unable to continue the deficit spending, like Greece, Ireland, and soon Portugal and Spain. Bond spreads will rise, and the .gov will find deficit spending simply too expensive. Raising taxes does little. Keep an eye on CA, IL, NY. The rich have options - they always did and always will. If my state raises taxes any further, I'm moving back to FL (and for more reasons than just the low/non taxes :->). If I do that, not only does my current state lose the tax 'increases' they hoped to get from me, they lose all of my tax $.

Regardless, this all leads to cuts. Austerity. And we can either get control of it now, or let things get bad enough to where it is forced upon us - just watch Europe. Europe is far more gone than the US......

It is much better for .gov agencies to make controlled/surgical cuts now, and I hope Amtrak does just that. I'll continue to vote for that.


----------



## monorailfan (Jan 7, 2011)

'Benefits Apartheid' between government workers and everyone else who pays for the gov't workers. It's an ugly generalized term, but its true.

"What exactly are you talking about here?"

Ryan, you just asked George Harrison and others to essentially prove you wrong, throw tons of data, charts and research to you, but when you have a question you don't bother to look it up yourself?

Fine, I'll help you. Here is what Benefits Apartheid means

"At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year."

Maybe folks you know don't see this. I know some who do and don't, but that is irrelevant because no matter how many people anyone knows, it is too small a sample to be statistically significant.

As long as I am a taxpayer in the private sector, I will vote all I can to remove the 'Benefits Apartheid' and cut goverment. And sometimes, but not all the time, that also includes programs like AMTRAK. It sucks, but we all have far bigger priorities in life than AMTRAK.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2011)

sunchaser said:


> Do you really care what I think the inflation rate is? Or are you just trying to pull my chain?
> 
> The official inflation rate may show very low, but every time we go to the store, it costs more than it did last time. We pretty much buy the exact same things every time, so it's not like we're getting luxury items.


I suggest that you look into how the inflation rate is actually calculated. What you're saying literally cannot be true.
As far as the rest of it, I'm glad that you retracted your claim about 20% raises. Yes, government employees are well paid. Most of them live here in the DC area where the cost of living is freaking outrageous.

"Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade."

Much of that can be attributed to government wages having to "catch up" with civilian pay rates. In the 90's, the opposite occurred, while private sector wages increased drastically, federal wages lagged behind (part of the reason that Clinton left a budget surplus behind when he left office). The pendulum swings back and forth, that's just how these things go.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 7, 2011)

Ryan said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really care what I think the inflation rate is? Or are you just trying to pull my chain?
> ...


Though I suspect that sunchaser is exaggerating the price situation he's facing, the methodology of the consumer bundle calculations can be a bit of a hash. All it takes for the inflation he faces and the official rate to differ is for his purchasing to differ from the consumer bundle in a substantial way.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 8, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Though I suspect that sunchaser is exaggerating the price situation he's facing, the methodology of the consumer bundle calculations can be a bit of a hash. All it takes for the inflation he faces and the official rate to differ is for his purchasing to differ from the consumer bundle in a substantial way.


Sunchaser's a she, but that's a good point - the CPI is only representative of 80% of consumers and doesn't include rural consumers, so there's a 20% chance that she's in that group.


----------



## Kurn (Jan 8, 2011)

Living in a basically anti passenger rail state,I can tell you that the mantra,"nobody rides trains"IS taking hold.Judging from the comments from the Akron Beacon Journal,the image of empty or nearly empty trains whizzing by is a pretty strong one.And,of course,those empty trains are fully funded by YOUR tax dollars,taking away money from roads and bridges.The highway lobby(read construction companies)is a powerful one here in Ohio.They are partially responsible for killing 3C,and will campaign against any future projects or expansions.

As I've said before,5.00 gas won't change a thing.Oh,people will grumble,but they will pay it,as there will be no viable alternative.


----------



## Eric S (Jan 8, 2011)

Kurn said:


> Living in a basically anti passenger rail state,I can tell you that the mantra,"nobody rides trains"IS taking hold.Judging from the comments from the Akron Beacon Journal,the image of empty or nearly empty trains whizzing by is a pretty strong one.And,of course,those empty trains are fully funded by YOUR tax dollars,taking away money from roads and bridges.The highway lobby(read construction companies)is a powerful one here in Ohio.They are partially responsible for killing 3C,and will campaign against any future projects or expansions.
> 
> As I've said before,5.00 gas won't change a thing.Oh,people will grumble,but they will pay it,as there will be no viable alternative.


What "empty trains" are you referring to? Or is that just the mythical "empty trains" that "nobody rides" that most anti-rail folks seem to refer to?


----------



## Anderson (Jan 8, 2011)

Eric S said:


> Kurn said:
> 
> 
> > Living in a basically anti passenger rail state,I can tell you that the mantra,"nobody rides trains"IS taking hold.Judging from the comments from the Akron Beacon Journal,the image of empty or nearly empty trains whizzing by is a pretty strong one.And,of course,those empty trains are fully funded by YOUR tax dollars,taking away money from roads and bridges.The highway lobby(read construction companies)is a powerful one here in Ohio.They are partially responsible for killing 3C,and will campaign against any future projects or expansions.
> ...


It's the mythical ones, I believe. To be fair, Ohio has probably the worst rail service of any state north of the Ohio River: Cincinnati is served between 2 AM and 4 AM. Cleveland's service is all between 2 AM and 6 AM. Toledo can point to at least _some_ service to Chicago at 6-6:30 AM, but the return hours are awful...you get the idea.

As a result, Ohio's annual train ridership is about 10,000 riders more than Indiana. I think the only states with lower ridership than these two east of the Mississippi are MS, AL, TN, KY, and WV...and MS is actually comparable with IN. There may not be empty trains in Ohio, but during most peoples' waking hours, there's not going to be a single person on the platforms anywhere in the state.

And Ryan: Fair catch on the gender bit.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 8, 2011)

Weve beat this old horse several times but as a retired Government employee I gotta tell you there's no way on Earth the average Civil Servant pulls in 123,000+ compensation a year,

For years civl servants at all levels, including school teachers and military members were way underpaid. Many of my friends and associates when I lived in DC would ask when I was going to come over to the private side and make some real money! Ryan hit the nail on the head, living in the DC Metro Area is VERY expensive, maybe as much so as New York and San Francisco!

Now that I live in Texas (a LOW Wage State for sure!)I see what the Government employees face as talk of layoffs/paycuts etc. swirl around but I havent heard anyone mention that Bill Gates and Quarterbacks and Singers and Movie startsa etc. are Overpaid! We have a saying here in Texas thank God for Mississippi (used to be Arkansas!) or else we'd be on the bottom in all areas of social services and government spending, yet we have the lowest taxation rate and the most billionaires and millionaoires of any state, even more so than New York IINM! People that bash Government employees need to understand that envy and throwing around Fox News and Herr Glenn Beck made up statistics dont make it true! As Mark Twain said: "There's three kinds of Lies, Lies,Damn Lies and Statistics!"  :help:


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 8, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Though I suspect that sunchaser is exaggerating the price situation he's facing, the methodology of the consumer bundle calculations can be a bit of a hash. All it takes for the inflation he faces and the official rate to differ is for his purchasing to differ from the consumer bundle in a substantial way.
> ...


Thank you for pointing out that I'm a she. I thought I have made that clear, mentioning that I have a husband many times. I could post a picture, but it might break the camera. :giggle:

I'm not prone to exaggeration on prices-for example, at the beginning of last year, the price for a 3 pack of "Oregon Chai" jumped from $5 to $8, for no apparent reason. Milk, half and half has stayed low, but meats, sugar, & bread & paper products have seemed to go up. We, (my husband & I) go to the store twice a month-to a warehouse store & a regular store. He's a retired Veteran, so we have a fixed income that stays the same month to month.

If you have noticed, I live in the city, very close to downtown, not the country. Gas prices are around $2.70 to $3.02, as of yesterday.

As I mentioned before, Christmas did cost more, we bought less. In 2009, we had enough extra $ to take our first ever train trip from SLC to OLW, round trip in bedrooms. We also had to fly round trip to California for a funeral. Then in October, same year, we went to Glenwood Springs by train, with a roomette & bedroom. And bought a new TV at Christmas.

This last year, no train trips, no flights anywhere, & no big present at Christmas.

So maybe I'm wrong, because I watch my food/sundries budget close enough to see a big difference?


----------



## Anderson (Jan 8, 2011)

Sunchaser,

I'm sorry...I do tend towards a limited amount of obliviousness...I'm also something of a stats geek, which aggravates the blinders. Rest assured, you're not the first person I've mixed up genders on at a board I frequent...and I am fairly certain you won't be the last.

As to the pricing situation, part of the problem is that a "standard bundle" is assumed, and that implies a certain makeup of one's food consumption (i.e. grains versus veggies, meats vs. fruits). Also, acc. to Wikipedia, the makeup is:

Housing: 41.4%

Food and Beverage: 17.4%

Transport: 17.0%

Medical Care: 6.9%

Other: 6.9%

Apparel: 6.0%

Entertainment: 4.4%

Ryan,

It is therefore quite possible for food to shoot up and the index to remain relatively stable if housing, for example, falls (or remains steady). Similarly, if her expenses don't resemble the index (i.e. Housing 30%, Food and Beverage 25%, etc.), then changes to her expenses won't track at 1:1, and may indeed have a very weak correlation. A consumer living in downtown NYC, for example, may only spend a relatively fixed $9 a day on transportation (two round trips on the subway anywhere in the City) while one living in suburban DC may be buying 6-8 gallons of gas at the market rate per day ($15-$30 depending on gas prices) plus auto insurance, maintenance, etc. In suburban LA, this number might be even bigger. An older consumer will almost invariably spend a bit more on medical care than a younger one. And so on.

To point out an example, by virtue of owning my house free and clear, my expenses will never even resemble the CPI. Not having any mortgage expenses (my house is assessed at about $500,000...assuming that I put 20% down, 5% interest on a $400,000 loan would still come to $20,000 per year; this is also why, if I did not live in my current house, I would never have bought it) fixes me as being well outside the norm for the CPI. I also do not spend much on "upgrades" for the house (it still has the same hardwood floors it was built with about the time the oldest Amtrak equipment was being built, and the kitchen floor only got changed a few years ago because the old flooring wore out. The furnace is original, too, though that is much more regrettable as the heating is oil).


----------



## Kurn (Jan 8, 2011)

Eric S said:


> Kurn said:
> 
> 
> > Living in a basically anti passenger rail state,I can tell you that the mantra,"nobody rides trains"IS taking hold.Judging from the comments from the Akron Beacon Journal,the image of empty or nearly empty trains whizzing by is a pretty strong one.And,of course,those empty trains are fully funded by YOUR tax dollars,taking away money from roads and bridges.The highway lobby(read construction companies)is a powerful one here in Ohio.They are partially responsible for killing 3C,and will campaign against any future projects or expansions.
> ...



The mythical ones,of course.Recently,it's been heavily promoted by John Kasich(R-Wall St).


----------



## LA Resident (Jan 8, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> Weve beat this old horse several times but as a retired Government employee I gotta tell you there's no way on Earth the average Civil Servant pulls in 123,000+ compensation a year,
> 
> For years civl servants at all levels, including school teachers and military members were way underpaid. Many of my friends and associates when I lived in DC would ask when I was going to come over to the private side and make some real money! Ryan hit the nail on the head, living in the DC Metro Area is VERY expensive, maybe as much so as New York and San Francisco!
> 
> Now that I live in Texas (a LOW Wage State for sure!)I see what the Government employees face as talk of layoffs/paycuts etc. swirl around but I havent heard anyone mention that Bill Gates and Quarterbacks and Singers and Movie startsa etc. are Overpaid! We have a saying here in Texas thank God for Mississippi (used to be Arkansas!) or else we'd be on the bottom in all areas of social services and government spending, yet we have the lowest taxation rate and the most billionaires and millionaoires of any state, even more so than New York IINM! People that bash Government employees need to understand that envy and throwing around Fox News and Herr Glenn Beck made up statistics dont make it true! As Mark Twain said: "There's three kinds of Lies, Lies,Damn Lies and Statistics!"  :help:


Amen for someone who Texas who still knows how to think! I just read that your esteemed Governor Parry now has a $10 billion plus state deficit, and he can't blame bloated pension plans or unionized civil servants or overpaid welfare chislers or any of the usual scapegoats because Texas ranks low in all of these allegedly unAmerican benefits! Here's hoping the rest of your fellow Texans wake up to reality as well.


----------



## henryj (Jan 8, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Sunchaser,
> 
> As to the pricing situation, part of the problem is that a "standard bundle" is assumed, and that implies a certain makeup of one's food consumption (i.e. grains versus veggies, meats vs. fruits). Also, acc. to Wikipedia, the makeup is:
> 
> ...


The reason you get into these arguments is because for most retired people that own their homes housing is just a small number, not 41%. So that accentuates increases in food and transport in their analysis. So for us(I include me in that group) there is substantial inflation in the system at this time because of food and gasoline increases. Then to make that worse we are on fixed income that usually includes Social Security which basis it's increases on the formula you like so much and we get no raise to take care of the increases in our budget. Also, if you are still working, then usually increases in costs are eventually taken care of in your annual salary or wage increases which most companies base on that same formula. So if you are working now days you get no increase and your housing costs should have gone down or stayed stable, but if your retired then your cost of living is going up substantially. What this has to do with trains I have no idea.


----------



## monorailfan (Jan 9, 2011)

"Ryan hit the nail on the head, living in the DC Metro Area is VERY expensive, maybe as much so as New York and San Francisco!"

Yes it is! So much so that I made the *choice* early in my career to get out of DC (actually, Gaithersburg, MD).

But why is it that the hub of the Federal Govt is one of, if not the most expensive places to live in the USA? Hmmmm - I've got tons of charts to back that one up!

"Government employees need to understand that envy and throwing around Fox News and Herr Glenn Beck made up statistics dont make it true!"

Nope, USA Today article. 'Federal workers earning double their private counterparts'

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

It's time to trim the govt at all levels so that we are not flat out scrapping some programs entirely. Cut back Amtrak - Yes! Scrap? Heck no!


----------



## Ryan (Jan 9, 2011)

That comparison says nothing about the kinds of jobs that are done that fall into each of the two categories.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 9, 2011)

If I may, "government employees" are not the same sort of worker as the "average" worker: The government does not directly employ large swathes of the janitorial staff, etc. (a lot of things in that vein are contracted out now), and they don't have a "manufacturing" side. So it's sort of like comparing "my spending" to the CPI: If they're not identical, then differences will arise.

That said, I do understand the frustration at lots of people in the private sector having to take major wage cuts while those in government jobs aren't nearly as affected.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 9, 2011)

monorailfan said:


> Nope, USA Today article. 'Federal workers earning double their private counterparts'
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm


USA Today is a Gannett rag, more suited to drying up canine urination than for reading. Quoting it as a source is not a method to shore up credibility.

BTW, I am not paying attention to, nor have any interest in, your insipid argument.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2011)

Like most things, the discussion of federal pay is vastly oversimplified. If you compare all workers to all federal workers, then yes it can appear the feds are overpaid. However, if you compare the average pay for any organization that does not have a large number of low paid, low level workers to the workforce as whole you are going to come to that same conclusion. It is an argument without a rational basis. Are you suggesting that a burger flipper should be paid the same as a biomedical researcher with years of education and experience?

Our system does not value the efforts of low skilled labor and high skill labor at the same level because they are simply not the same. Similarly, the federal sector has very little low level jobs left. They have double the employees with bachelor's degrees and higher percentages of masters and doctorates than the general workforce as a whole. Some research has suggested that some federal employees are actually underpaid compared to comparable jobs in the private sector. Also it should be noted that outside of the department of defense, which apparently is either on its own pay scale or has a large number of executive service personal, the average federal civilian employee is not making more than 153k a year as that is the limit set by the senior executive schedule which can not be exceeded by non SES employees.

http://factcheck.org/2010/12/are-federal-workers-overpaid/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Executive_Service


----------



## jis (Jan 10, 2011)

Interesting article in _the Economist_ on the subject of the benefits of public sector employment, this week. Take a look at: The battle ahead: The struggle with public-sector unions should be about productivity and parity, not just spending cuts.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 10, 2011)

That's a fantastic article, thanks for sharing it. I really should get around to subscribing...


----------



## Pastor Dave (Jan 10, 2011)

Greetings All!

What a great thread! I live in an area which relies heavily on the hospitality industry and, from what I hear, that is a business that feels the economic pinch sooner than many other areas where folks are either union-contracted or government wage dependent.

Where do Amtrak workers fall on the continuum between being solely dependant on the current economy versus longer-term wage agreements?

In the last month 4 of my parishioners have been laid off from resorts because folks are buying more take-in pizza than taking meals in resort restaurants. Are Amtrak folks subject to the same volatility?

Dave


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 10, 2011)

Most Amtrak workers are part of unions, and have wage agreements in place. Most of those agreements have been signed recently to carry through the next five years or so. Those not in unions are in professional/management jobs.

That said, it's generally not the economy that impacts Amtrak employees' pay, its the political/funding environment.

While the wages may be stable, hours may be cut (no overtime) and/or employees may be furloughed if cuts have to occur. Ridership has been growing pretty much every year the past decade. However, things such as congressional mandates on reducing food-service losses (cutting jobs in the dining car, destaffing some cafe cars, etc.) has still meant that some folks got laid off some time ago.


----------

