Cuts from 20% to 30%

[Anderson]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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

 

[henryj]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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?

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The stimulus did little if any to improve the situation.

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

Or raise taxes.

Is there something wrong with getting spending under control???

Look what happened under Mr. Carter, we had similar (not exact) financial issues.

We are repeating the past.

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.

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.