Never let a crisis go to waste

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Not as long as the GOP control the purse strings in the US House.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican-controlled House panel on Wednesday approved deep spending cuts to Amtrak's budget just hours after a deadly crash in Philadelphia.
Did the House do a lot for Amtrak during the years the Democrats controlled it? 2006-2010 I think, but I wasn't paying much attention to Amtrak back then, not having a lot of time off for travel... I'm not asking rhetorically, I really want to know.
 
Did the House do a lot for Amtrak during the years the Democrats controlled it? 2006-2010 I think, but I wasn't paying much attention to Amtrak back then, not having a lot of time off for travel... I'm not asking rhetorically, I really want to know.
In some ways yes, in some ways no. The stimulus helped out rail travel throughout the country, including Amtrak. Amtrak has ordered new electric locomotives (ACS-64) and new single-level long distance cars, something that had not happened in quite some time. On the flip side, PRIIA (I think) prevented federal funds from being used for short distance trains, such as the hoosier state, which is why we see it almost being cancelled on a yearly basis unless the state comes up with funds. I wish I had more details, but I'm a medical student and I've been "Out of the loop" for a while. Also remember, from 06-08 GWB was president, leaving only really 2 years to get things done. I can say almost certainly, however, that if democrats were in control of the government, Amtrak would have significantly more investment. People (I'm not saying you) often say both parties are bad, but when was the last time a Democrat proposed zeroing out Amtrak funding entirely?
 
Carter.

While Democrats had a majority in both houses and the White House in 2008-2010, they didn't have the 60 votes needed to do anything in the Senate (except for a few weeks).

That said, passenger rail USED to not be a partisan issue. However, in this new hyper-polarized "our primary goal is the make Barak Obama a one-term President" era, it's been turned into a political football like everything else.

We're seeing a local version of that play out here in MD, where (republican) Gov Hogan is deciding on the fate of the Purple Line. Despite his primary focus being "MD is open for business" and the business community enthusiastically support it, he may kill the project because transit=liberals=opposed.
 
Thanks for the answers. I wish I had paid more attention starting years ago. But then, this Gov. Hogan seems pretty typical to me, not listening to a key constituency because it doesn't fit his mindless script.
 
The stimulus helped out rail travel throughout the country, including Amtrak. Amtrak has ordered new electric locomotives (ACS-64) and new single-level long distance cars, something that had not happened in quite some time.
And though it's being done through a consortium of states rather than Amtrak directly, the purchase of new bi-level corridor cars with stimulus funds still benefits Amtrak. They'll (1) be used on trains Amtrak operates for the state-funded corridors, and (2) free up Amfleet and Horizon cars for Amtrak to use elsewhere.
 
Let us remember that both political parties have failed miserably in one key area that Amtrak needs most-a source of predictable funding.
 
But then, this Gov. Hogan seems pretty typical to me, not listening to a key constituency because it doesn't fit his mindless script.
I've started thinking of most Republican party leadership as brain-damaged; it's the only thing which explains their behavior. To be bipartisan, I feel the same way about Andrew Cuomo. They're all of an age to have been subject to heavy lead poisoning from gasoline, so maybe they actually *are* brain-damaged. Hopefully younger people twho gre up after the lead phaseout will help matters.
 
They're all of an age to have been subject to heavy lead poisoning from gasoline, so maybe they actually *are* brain-damaged. Hopefully younger people twho gre up after the lead phaseout will help matters.
Definitely. My boomer generation has really f'ed up. I've been telling younger folks for some time that they'd better take over now, if they have any hope of having a planet to retire on. And the lead poisoning theory is amusing, although the degradation of the educational system and the media probably have more to do with it.
 
And the lead poisoning theory is amusing, although the degradation of the educational system and the media probably have more to do with it.
Well, here's why I started seriously thinking about the political impacts of lead poisoning.

It's basically been proven that lead poisoning is the cause of all of the crime waves in the 20th century. A lot of people don't want to admit it, but the evidence is overwhelming for a social science topic.

Read this, then read the linked studies:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

Then read the followup articles (in no particular order since I've had trouble finding all of them):

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/02/lead-and-crime-its-brain-thing

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/01/yep-gasoline-lead-explains-crime-decline-canada-too

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/09/prison-rates-are-down-thanks-lead-theyre-going-stay-down

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/02/lead-and-crime-brennan-center-weighs

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/08/childhood-lead-exposure-causes-lot-more-just-rise-violent-crime

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/01/lead-and-crime-some-new-evidence-century-ago

To be clear, the link is between *childhood* lead exposure and violent crime rates *when those children become young adults*, so there's a ~18 year lag. Changes in lead presence in the environment, of course, lag the introduction or removal of lead in gasoline, paint, or pipes.

So, anyway we know from direct neurological studies that childhood lead poisoning causes lowered ability to reason and lowered inhibitions. (There are additional effects which are documented in adults, but it's more complicated.) We know that there was massive environmental exposure during a particular time period. We've already linked this to the crime rates among young adults.

But what happens when that same cohort reaches an older age? You'd *expect* them to be less able to reason and to be more prone to irrational violence. I take the theory quite seriously at this point.

It's worth noting that one of the main remaining sources of lead in the environment is from lead bullets. They volatilize and are breathed in at gun ranges (and people who shoot a lot at ranges frequently have elevated blood levels), while there are dangerous amounts in meat which is shot with lead bullets (there's a study from Iowa about this as well as a couple of others). As far as I'm aware I'm the only one who's suggested this, but if you've wondered why the NRA doesn't always seem to be exactly representing gun owners in a sane manner... maybe there's a reason for it.

People don't generally like to believe in the environmental-exposure explanations for social problems, but they've had some really large explanatory successes, often better than the "cultural" or the "genetic" explanations.
 
Back
Top