Passenger Trains > Couldn't he date a "rail" woman, instead?

Congressman Bill Shuster, Chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee is romantically involved with an airline industry lobbyist.  His Committee has legislative jurisdiction over airline matters, but he says there is no conflict of interest.

Rep. Bill Shuster dating airline industry lobbyist

What if he dated a woman who worked for the National Association of Railroad Passengers, instead.  Would Congress be more supportive of Amtrak?

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/15 20:24 by RuleG.

NARP can't afford this woman

---

Shuster retired from Congress in 2001... If he was dating her when he was chairing or serving on the committee that would be a rank conflict of interest, in my opinon after serving four years on the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
But Federal rules are much more lax than California's, and Members of Congress tend to be more sleazy than state lawmakers, if that is possible...

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

MojaveBill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shuster retired from Congress in 2001... If he was
> dating her when he was chairing or serving on the
> committee that would be a rank conflict of
> interest, in my opinon after serving four years on
> the California Fair Political Practices
> Commission.

Hmm, I think you're mistaking Bill with Bud. Bud Shuster retired in 2001. His son, Bill, serves today and sits on the aforementioned House committee. 

That's quite a dress on the woman to the left. Would make a nice high visibility color scheme for a locomotive

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rep. Bill Shuster dating airline industry
> lobbyist
>
> What if he dated a woman who worked for the
> National Association of Railroad Passengers,
> instead.  Would Congress be more supportive of
> Amtrak?
>

Nope. I don't think so.

A love triangle involving someone who can influence Shelley Rubino to become pro-passenger rail (then influence Bill Shuster) is what needs to occur. She can advocate for both airline industry and the passenger rail "industry." She can become America's transportation anti-heroine!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/15 23:15 by cchan006.

The woman standing next to Shuster, what the heck is she wearing?

ColdRainAndSnow Wrote:
------------------------------------------------
> Hmm, I think you're mistaking Bill with Bud. Bud
> Shuster retired in 2001. His son, Bill, serves
> today and sits on the aforementioned House
> committee.

So it sounds as if the conflict-of-interest that was mentioned earlier still stands.

But, of course, in this day-and-age nobody cares.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So it sounds as if the conflict-of-interest that
> was mentioned earlier still stands.
>
> But, of course, in this day-and-age nobody cares.

How can you say nobody cares?  Did you read the article?  The president of FlyersRights.org, quoted in the article, cares very much.  The article was printed on the front page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  Of course, there are people who care about these matters.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can you say nobody cares?  Did you read the
> article?  The president of FlyersRights.org,
> quoted in the article, cares very much.  The
> article was printed on the front page of the
> Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  Of course, there are
> people who care about these matters.

They might care.  But where are the reforms?

Remember when FRA chief Betty Munro was way-too-chummy with a lobbyist from Union Pacific?  What happended?  Not much.  Munro's experience must not have sent a very strong message to Shuster or anyone else that such things are a no-no.

These offenses seem to surface about every other year or so.  Ho hum.

Sure, as you say, people supposedly care, and then we're treated to the same guck over and over again.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RuleG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How can you say nobody cares?  Did you read
> the
> > article?  The president of FlyersRights.org,
> > quoted in the article, cares very much.  The
> > article was printed on the front page of the
> > Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  Of course, there are
> > people who care about these matters.
>
> They might care.  But where are the reforms?
>
> Remember when FRA chief Betty Munro was
> way-too-chummy with a lobbyist from Union Pacific?
>  What happended?  Not much.  Munro's experience
> must not have sent a very strong message to
> Shuster or anyone else that such things are a
> no-no.
>
> These offenses seem to surface about every other
> year or so.  Ho hum.
>
> Sure, as you say, people supposedly care, and then
> we're treated to the same guck over and over
> again.

Yup, business as usual, because people rant and forget, and actually don't care - for example, the first comment entry in the link above. The California Anti-Amtrak Villain and career politician Tom McClintock* has already found a way around term limits. To borrow a line from a craft beer available on the Pacific Surfliner, the political machine has successfully kept the voters barefoot and stupid.

If Shelley Rubino is indeed a puppet of the airline industry in this situation, then it shows how petty the lobby really is (which is business as usual), to try to overturn the relatively recent rule that advertised airfare should include fees and taxes. If people weren't so barefoot and stupid, they would realize that the airline industry only cares about the perception of lower airfares, and don't give a damn about their customers. For everyone's sake, let's just hope the divorced-and-lonely Shuster is just dating a woman he sees often as part of his job, and nothing more. :-)

* I only disagree with his anti-Amtrak position. He's kept himself "clean" otherwise.

People move regularly from Congressional staff positions to lobbyist positions, and back to Congress as representatives (if they want to take a big pay cut). No different than generals and colonels who retire and take jobs which value their knowledge and connections.  These are the people you meet, seduce for campaign contributions etc.  Maybe represent their interests if time allows

FWIW, I was more surprised by Shuster waiving the rules to allow a trade association guy to write the new law governing the airline industry. But that's how things have been done in DC since 1789 or thereabouts. (Anybody who doubts that should consider the open door to corporations in the 1950s, or to unions in the 1930s or to railroads and silver/gold in the 1880s-early 1900s)

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So it sounds as if the conflict-of-interest that
> was mentioned earlier still stands.
>
> But, of course, in this day-and-age nobody cares.

The conflict of interest very much stands. But the small detail of who it is we're talking about probably matters, yes? My outrage is muted because this revelation is completely in line with the poor judgment and hypocrisy-riddled decision making that many Congressmen specialize in. 

Hook him up with Amtrak's Julie...pretty soon we'll have hourly Pennsylvanians calling at the William Shuster Transportion Center in Johnstown....

Dave

That dress reminds me of Amtrak decor back in the 1970's. So maybe there's more pro-Amtrak messaging in that photo than we think.

- Paul

Nothing new here. One can trace part of the foundation of the "great recession" that began in 2008 and arguably continues today back to Barney Frank and his very close relationship with a power-to-be in the regulatory side of the mortgage industry. And that is only one example of many be it either party. 



Jay