Passenger Trains > The Real Reason- Amtrak and the Bush Administration

Ok, here we go. I was thinking about the Ammess tonight and came up with a thought.

We all know Amtrak is on President Bushs' chopping block. However, I have never heard this argument, and no, I am not even remotely getting political.

Here's the question....

Is Amtrak being zeroed out because of favors to the freight roads, as a thank you for campaign money? The administration was supported by all the class 1's in the US.....That thought, along with Secretary Snow, who hails from CSX, and I am thinking maybe Bush is trying to kill the passenger carrier as a "thank you, here ya go" type mentality. I really don't think the administration "hates or dislikes" Amtrak, and you can't tell me that a measly 900million dollars is going to make a difference in the budget and/or defecit....Perhaps the administration is using the current #$!*&%$# going on at Amtrak as an excuse to "reform" the fledgling company...Maybe Bush knows the Democrats won't allow Amtraks' death, but if he is seen as trying to do something about it, the freight roads might take notice and say, "well, he tried."

Maybe I have been watching too many West Wing marathons on Bravo, but trying to shave 1 billion dollars off the federal budget is hardly putting a dent in the defecit. Anyone side with me on my conspiracy theory?? It makes sense..

Hi_ball_14 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe I have been watching too many West Wing
> marathons on Bravo, but trying to shave 1 billion
> dollars off the federal budget is hardly putting a
> dent in the defecit. Anyone side with me on my
> conspiracy theory?? It makes sense..

No it doesn't. Amtrak being an unnecessary Federal expense has been a conservative thing for some time. The current policy is just playing to that base, just as in the past. A billion here and a billion there add up. However, though I am not known as a supporter of long distance trains, a whole lot worse pork is out there.

As I have noted here in the past, I think railroad managements consider signing on with Amtrak 34 years ago a "Faustian pact with the Devil'. Had the RPSA 1970, the Amtrak enabling legislation, simply not occurred, the intercity passenger train, save the Northeast Corridor, would have been 'gone with the wind" likely concurrent with the implementation of the 1980 Staggers deregulation act.

The California passenger train initiative, including the LA Metrolink, simply would have been a "non-happen".

As for myself, I am quite astounded that the LD's are still around in Amtrak's 35th year. I was employed in the industry on A-Day; at that time, the water cooler gave Amtrak a life expectancy of five years.

Hi_ball_14 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> ....and no, I am not even remotely getting political.
>

> Is Amtrak being zeroed out because of favors to
> the freight roads, as a thank you for campaign
> money?

That IS political LOL

I guess it is political..Actually, EVERYTHING that comes from government IS political.. What I was trying to convey is, I didn't want to start a "Red vs Blue" war...

Like, looking here:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,938184,938184#msg-938184

A reasonable person could conclude that this simply isn't the kind of thing one wants to fund.

People can disagree, but there's no need to invent a conspiracy theory.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like, looking here:
>
> http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,9
> 38184,938184#msg-938184
>
> A reasonable person could conclude that this
> simply isn't the kind of thing one wants to fund.
>
> People can disagree, but there's no need to invent
> a conspiracy theory.


Who is inventing a conspiracy theory? Look, regardless if a person is republican or a Democrat, we need to be able to ask questions, and question events. This country was founded on a check and balance system, and there is no greater check than the American people. Reindeerflame, what's the harm in questioning certain events that link up and possibly formulate a conclusion? If I am wrong, so be it. No biggie. Again, I asked a question--I didn't say for sure the administration was working behind the black curtain with freight railroads....

Hi!

> check than the American people.

Ok, here's a great question to submit to a vote:

Would you agree to an increase in the Social Security retirement date by one year to continue the Amtrak subsidy?

TB

tburzio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi!
>
> > check than the American people.
>
> Ok, here's a great question to submit to a vote:
>
> Would you agree to an increase in the Social
> Security retirement date by one year to continue
> the Amtrak subsidy?
>
> TB
>

I don't think one year coincides with about 1 Billion dollars..That's a bunch of dollars. Social Security accounts for more spending than any other govt function...

Re: "People can disagree, but there's no need to invent a conspiracy theory."

Conspiracy? Hardlu. Quid pro quo paybacks to campaign contributors has become the American way. Certainly doesn't make it right, but voters have been taught to vote against their own best interests time and time again. We've been brainwashed to spout Red vs. Blue epithets at each other, and then forget that they're all crooks. We get what we vote for (or _don't vote_ for, in the case of the majority of elligible American voters).

WP

if he was trying to kill it for ANY reason then why would he give TWICE as much money to Amtrak now than in ANY year of the 8 years of the person before him

no your point makes NO sense

PTRA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if he was trying to kill it for ANY reason then
> why would he give TWICE as much money to Amtrak
> now than in ANY year of the 8 years of the person
> before him
>
> no your point makes NO sense


Really? Again, I am not a conspiracy theorist, just throwing out an "theory" to get some feedback. Look, if Mr. Bush allocates more money than Mr. Clinton, and it STILL fails, then he has yet a BETTER validation for terminating Amtrak than ever before. Don't laugh..think about yesterdays #11..or the prior 2 weeks #11's and #14's, and the Sunsets..How mant passengers are going to ride Amtrak again, let alone take their round trip portion back home when they travel a train that takes 24 hours to go from OKJ to LAX? I may not be right about my theory, but it DOES make a whole lot of sense.

Let me ask you a question. Was not Mr. George Shultz(ex-UP chairman, also on Mr. Bush(41's), cabinet? or in some equal capacity? You don't think Shultz and Davidson share some stories, thoughts, and ideas together? You don't think Snow(ex-CSX chief, Treasury Secretary), and Davidson didn't ever call one another and discuss the pest that is Amtrak, and possibly petition a certain administration official on how to get rid of it? Maybe not, but certainly possible, if not probable. These people are not stupid, in fact they are pretty clever, and so are the folks in the whitehouse...they can concoct any scenario they wish, and hope people like us don't figure it out someday. That's wghy I am simply asking questions.

If you think for one minute the freight railroads are not constantly in Washingtons' ear, think again. They are huge campaign contributors.

This makes too much sense.

Yeah, but they're losing the fight though, BNSF and NS still do an excellent job with Amtrak! HAve to add CN and CP too!

Dont tie in Social Security with Amtrak, that is a really dumb comparism/propasition. Its bad enough people have to work until they are 65 under it! It should be 60 or 55 for EVERYONE! Raise the cap to make people up to 130,000 pay in!

Rail1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dont tie in Social Security with Amtrak, that is a
> really dumb comparism/propasition. Its bad enough
> people have to work until they are 65 under it!
> It should be 60 or 55 for EVERYONE! Raise the cap
> to make people up to 130,000 pay in!

Dumb doesn't even start to describe that proposal! SS taxes aren't SUPPOSED to go into the general fund, where they pay for highways and airlines, anyway, but the proposed Amtrak subsidy of $1.8 billion would probably add a day or two if it all went straight to the company.

Actually we should exempt the first $30,000 (indexed) from FICA and eliminate the cap altogether, AND apply FICA to income from assets as well as salaries and wages. We would then never have to worry about it again.

I can hear Steve Forbes screaming.........

lowwater

Didn't Gore want to put Social Security in "lock box?" You are probably close in your one day estimate of SS monies paying 1.8B

lowwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rail1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dumb doesn't even start to describe that proposal!
> SS taxes aren't SUPPOSED to go into the general
> fund, where they pay for highways and airlines,
> anyway, but the proposed Amtrak subsidy of $1.8
> billion would probably add a day or two if it all
> went straight to the company.
>
> lowwater

The direct costs of highways and aviation (roads, bridges and airport improvements) are paid out of user fees. Other costs such as Medicaid/Medicare expenses associated with automobile accidents are paid out of general revenues.

Dave

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lowwater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rail1 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Dumb doesn't even start to describe that
> proposal!
> > SS taxes aren't SUPPOSED to go into the
> general
> > fund, where they pay for highways and
> airlines,
> > anyway, but the proposed Amtrak subsidy of
> $1.8
> > billion would probably add a day or two if it
> all
> > went straight to the company.
> >
> > lowwater
>
> The direct costs of highways and aviation (roads,
> bridges and airport improvements) are paid out of
> user fees. Other costs such as Medicaid/Medicare
> expenses associated with automobile accidents are
> paid out of general revenues.
>
> Dave
>
In the first place "user fees" are taxes that we all pay. You pay the fuel tax every time you buy a head of lettuce whether or not you've ever been in a car, you pay the airline ticket tax every time you pay your insurance premium whether or not you've even been on a plane.

The Highway Trust Fund pays about 2/3 of the direct highway budget, which in turn is less than half actual annual cost of roads and highways. The rest comes out of the general fund. The ticket tax covers only a little more than half of the taxpayer cost of air travel.

lowwater