Passenger Trains > Next proposed CR cuts 1.5 billion HSR and intercity rai

Details on proposed cuts for the next Continuing Resolution:

http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=280

Isn't it odd that all of the transportation cuts are from the rail sector?

Latebeans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't it odd that all of the transportation cuts
> are from the rail sector?

The two things most dear to politicians, votes and campaign contributions.

More voters in cars than in trains?

More campaign contributors in automotive and air than rail?

Okay, i.e. follow the money. I think your on to something.

Don't forget that this is the Republican proposal, and being anti-train has recently become one of their mantras (it didn't used to be so, as the original Tommy Thompson, Trent Lott, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, among others, showed). We'll see what happens with the jockeying, including whether they really intend to take their ball and go home if they don't get everything they want.

BobB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget that this is the Republican proposal,
> and being anti-train has recently become one of
> their mantras (it didn't used to be so, as the
> original Tommy Thompson, Trent Lott, and Kay
> Bailey Hutchinson, among others, showed). We'll
> see what happens with the jockeying, including
> whether they really intend to take their ball and
> go home if they don't get everything they want.

The Republicans have proposed de-funding the essential air services act, which is a step in the direction of a rational transportation policy.

Obama just said at his news conference that there will no more CRs, unless an extra day or two is needed to finish the paperwork. If course he's said things like that before....

Is this the latest? Or old news?? senate is at 1 202 224 3121. Shop people and maintenance first to go. Death by 1000 cuts.

Hey, the new House majority is all about creating jobs, remember?

Just not jobs with companies who build trains or lay new track.

Dave

Getting rid of Amtrak will cost how many jobs, so you can see that is a lie right away. Here is something new, since eighty percent of the transportation bill goes towards highways, lets toll every one to make back the money we lost. Now if we just gotten rid of the tax cut on those who make 200,000 a year or more.

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, the new House majority is all about creating
> jobs, remember?
>
> Just not jobs with companies who build trains or
> lay new track.
>
> Dave

There would be lost jobs if Amtrak went down, yes, and more lost jobs for all the proposed construction (although those jobs do not exist yet).

There was an interesting article today about how Milwaukee has eliminated much of its bus service to save money, but that very move is hurting the city as the unemployed (most likely to need to rely on mass transit) are now no longer able to apply for jobs in all the locations no longer served by bus.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/11 13:11 by erielackawanna.

erielackawanna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DavidP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey, the new House majority is all about
> creating
> > jobs, remember?
> >
> > Just not jobs with companies who build trains
> or
> > lay new track.
> >
> > Dave
>
> There would be lost jobs if Amtrak went down, yes,
> and more lost jobs for all the proposed
> construction (although those jobs do not exist
> yet).
>
> There was an interesting article today about how
> Milwaukee has eliminated much of its bus service
> to save money, but that very move is hurting the
> city as the unemployed (most likely to need to
> rely on mass transit) are now no longer able to
> apply for jobs in all the locations no longer
> served by bus.


The mobility / immobility of labor has caught the interest of many economists. They argue that unemployed people are often unable to seek work precisely because they lack local transportation, as in your Milwaukee example. Or, their house's selling price is way underwater and they're tied to the unemployment tether in a particular region or state. So, they can't go to places where jobs exist.

The NJ Transit examples I mentioned in another post are one cheap way to connect people who want work with places that need workers. Even in the broad range of budget cuts in NJ, Gov Christie has spared the 71 and 79x bus routes.

zzzrail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Getting rid of Amtrak will cost how many jobs, so
> you can see that is a lie right away. Here is
> something new, since eighty percent of the
> transportation bill goes towards highways, lets
> toll every one to make back the money we lost. Now
> if we just gotten rid of the tax cut on those who
> make 200,000 a year or more.


Or try something really radical like making GE pay some taxes. $52 billion profit: US Taxes: $0. Especially since GE has made some pretty significant profits selling crappy locomotives to a certain American passenger rail company.

krapplem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or try something really radical like making GE pay
> some taxes. $52 billion profit: US Taxes: $0.
> Especially since GE has made some pretty
> significant profits selling crappy locomotives to
> a certain American passenger rail company.


No, no, no... businesses are leaving America (we are told) because our taxes are too high. Obviously, zero, is much too much for a company to pay.

Now, if the issue was that we had made a conscious decision to shift our economy from manufacturing to service and had taken down trade barriers so that multinational corporations could hire folks in countries where they earn a dollar an hour - that we couldn't solve - but luckily, our problem is those excessive taxes of ZERO.

(By the way - before anyone from either party jumps on me, we can thank both our 40th and our 42nd President for those decisions - and they come from different parties.)

BobB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget that this is the Republican proposal,
> and being anti-train has recently become one of
> their mantras (it didn't used to be so, as the
> original Tommy Thompson, Trent Lott, and Kay
> Bailey Hutchinson, among others, showed). We'll
> see what happens with the jockeying, including
> whether they really intend to take their ball and
> go home if they don't get everything they want.


Doubt that'll happen! Bush and Co. tried to destroy Amtrak with no avail, these idiots will fail on that too!

erielackawanna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> krapplem Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Or try something really radical like making GE
> pay
> > some taxes. $52 billion profit: US Taxes: $0.
>
> > Especially since GE has made some pretty
> > significant profits selling crappy locomotives
> to
> > a certain American passenger rail company.
>
>
> No, no, no... businesses are leaving America (we
> are told) because our taxes are too high.
> Obviously, zero, is much too much for a company to
> pay.
>
> Now, if the issue was that we had made a conscious
> decision to shift our economy from manufacturing
> to service and had taken down trade barriers so
> that multinational corporations could hire folks
> in countries where they earn a dollar an hour -
> that we couldn't solve - but luckily, our problem
> is those excessive taxes of ZERO.
>
> (By the way - before anyone from either party
> jumps on me, we can thank both our 40th and our
> 42nd President for those decisions - and they come
> from different parties.)


The Financial Times notes that GE's outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and its aggressive tax situation have brought condemnation from both the Tea Party and the ultra-left MoveOn.org. It's unusual to see these groups in agreement on anything.

<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f1ab962-5ca5-11e0-ab7c-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IhBapT5C&gt;

That is 5.1 B not not 52 and they are a fav of the current administration but lets blame it on Bush.


Bob

Not very many rebublicans ride trains or buses and their attitude is simple: buy a car, be free, and help the economy. The addiction of imported gasoline burned in cars, the ever expanding wars, AND the continuing concentration of wealth in the top few percent of the population will surely destroy this country. Any serious discussion of cuts in war spending, income/wealth distribution, and reduction of oil use (not just imports BUT absolute quantity used) seems to be a new third rail. Our gutless, and apparently very stupid, politicians just don't seem to get it.

BobB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget that this is the Republican proposal,
> and being anti-train has recently become one of
> their mantras (it didn't used to be so, as the
> original Tommy Thompson, Trent Lott, and Kay
> Bailey Hutchinson, among others, showed). We'll
> see what happens with the jockeying, including
> whether they really intend to take their ball and
> go home if they don't get everything they want.

I think pro-rail republicans are politicians with Amtrak service in their districts. The anti-Amtrak folks don't have any service and don't want to pay for it. I suspect that there is enough Amtrak service that even the repub's will never vote Amtrak totally out of existence. On the other hand voting for any new rail service in someone else's district might be a tough road ahead.

robj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is 5.1 B not not 52 and they are a fav of the
> current administration but lets blame it on Bush.
>
>
> Bob


I'm missing where the GE posts tie into blaming Bush. Can you show me?

That being said, GE is a favorite of every administration, Republican and Democratic. It's too large not to be.

Take a look at money spent by 43 on contracts with GE. (I'm not blaming him for this one iota, but rather pointing out that it's bogus to say that any adminstration didn't pray at the alter of General Electric.)