OpenMinded said:
Does Bush personally appoint the head of Amtrak? Seriously, I'm just asking.
Technically by definition, no Bush does not appoint the head of Amtrak. However that said, he has appointed the few members of the Amtrak board that have that power. And it should be noted that of the 3 members that he has appointed, all are friends of his, and two of them he couldn't get confirmed by Congress. So he had to use a loophole to get them on the board, twice.
Apparently he didn't get the message from Congress the first time, when they refused to vote on his nominations. But rather than provide two new names, he used that loophole once again. Now he finally has provided two more nominations to Congress, that have yet to be acted upon by Congress. However, the fact remains that he has failed in his duties as President to appoint a full Amtrak board for the last several years.
So this to one extent or another leaves either Bush or someone within his administration with way too much influence on the small, under populated board.
Next let's consider that the board hired a firm to find the next president of Amtrak, the very day that they fired Gunn. Here we are now 6+ months later with narry a name in the wind. Either this firm is incompetent or they simply can find someone who can do the job that the board and through it the Administration seem to want done.
OpenMinded said:
The Senate and House however are not dependent on Bush's whims and gain nothing in supporting him over the wishes of the folks back home.
You're quite right, but consider that the DOT, not Congress holds control of Amtrak's stock. And any law that Congress passes to stop or change things that the administration may want, must be signed by the President or they more over-ride his veto.
OpenMinded said:
I have heard repeatedly on here to show where posted facts and items come from. I humbly ask where are the facts that George W. Bush hates Amtrak? I'm not asking for opinions or left wing talking points or right wing talking points either. Has he come right out and said he hated Amtrak? Has he personally stated that Amtrak needs dismantling? Has he personally set the funding on Amtrak and if so, how? I thought this has to be done by the House. Did he veto or use the line item veto to lower the funding?
I don't think that anyone outside of the Bush administration actually knows if it was George or someone else who wrote the zero funding for Amtrak into last years proposed budget that the White House sent to Capitol Hill. However, like it or not, the buck stops with the President. Everything that comes out of the White House by definition is what he wants. It's simply the way things are.
Had he fired someone over the zero funding, then he could have disavowed knowledge of it. Since the didn't happen, he at least concurred with trying to kill Amtrak when he allowed his proposed budget to go to Congress without comment or further action.
He's also allowed Norman Mineta, and others from the DOT, to run around bad mouthing Amtrak. Now I'll be the first to admit, that Amtrak needs fixing, major fixing. A lot of the problems can be corrected with proper funding, but not all. There does need to be some fundamental changes in how Amtrak works, manages things, and runs trains.
But allowing Norman to run around spouting half truths, and in some cases out right untruths, isn't the correct way to fix Amtrak. Saying that no one rides the LD's, when the facts clearly indicate otherwise as I proved with last March's figures else where on this forum, is a lie. Unless one considers an average of 333 people per LD train, each and every day to be nobody.
And again, Norman Mineta serves at the President's pleasure. If George didn't like what he was saying, then he should have fired him. The fact that that didn't happen can only mean of two things, either the President approved of Norman's actions, or the President has no clue about what's going on in the White House. I sure hope that it's the former, as the later is too scarry to contemplate.
To answer your direct question, no, I don't think that George has ever been quoted as saying that Amtrak should be gone. In fact as Governor of Texas, he once proclaimed that Amtrak was a Federal responsability. But the actions from his White House now seem to be in direct contradiction of that statement. It was his White House that proposed "Zero" funding last year. It was his White House that proposed joint State/Federal funding on more than one occasion. Oddly enough the funding split that they proposed is far worse for the states, than the matches they currently get for highways.
So the actions of the White House would seem to indicate that he has changed his tune, since he became President. And again, like it or not, everything that comes out of the White House is ultimately his responsability. He'll get the blame for everything bad, and the credit for everything good. It's simply the way things are.
As for your final question in that paragraph, the President proposes a budget, that Congress can accept outright or they can alter it to how they see fit. Then once it passes both houses of Congress, the President must sign it into law. Since the President doesn't have line item veto power on the budget, he can't just kill one line. He would have to shoot down the entire budget. That would shut this country down or at least create problems and political fall out.
OpenMinded said:
Now if its the Republican controlled Congress that's doing this, why is Bush to blame anymore than all the Presidents since Nixon that were controlled by Democrats?
So far it's been the Republican controlled Congress that has been opposing the budget recomendations from the White House, and approving more money than the administration asked them to give to Amtrak.
So everything keeps coming back to the White House and therefore, the President.
