No More Direct Funding for Amtrak?

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/161693-proposal-to-remove-amtrak-from-direct-congressional-funding-gets-a-hearing

Obama administration officials on Tuesday defended the president's proposal to place Amtrak under an executive agency budget instead of being reliant on direct appropriations from Congress.
Currently, Congress subsidizes Amtrak operations, but President Obama in his 2012 budget proposal called for placing its funding under the Federal Railroad Administration.

Click to expand...

I would hope that this would be a good thing, as it helps get Congress removed from the micromanagement that had been generally unfavorable.

Boardman also gets a good quote in:

"Amtrak is already the most cost-efficient passenger railroad in America, generating 76 percent of its operating need out of the fare box and covering more than 85 percent of its total operating costs from revenues," Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman told the panel.

Click to expand...

Consider me concerned. Granted, I don't know the details of the proposal.

However, if Amtrak was administered through the executive branch, wouldn't there be a risk that an unfriendly President would have an easier time killing it? Like how Bush II proposed zeroing out the funding in most (all?) of his budget proposals?

I think this makes sense. Very similar to how FTA (federal transit) funding is distributed.

I don't think that this would give a hostile administration any additional ability to starve Amtrak of funds. Congress would still have the ability to change the FRA funding, of which Amtrak will become a line item.

Given that this comes from the Obama administration, which is nothing if not pro-Amtrak, I'm sure this has been vetted as a good move. Additionally, I'd assume this would prevent Amtrak from a contentious reauthorization every few years, though I could be wrong.

Potentially, it would even make Amtrak more politically palatable for some - it may be easier to vote for funding for FHA (highway), FTA (transit), FRA (rail), and FAA (air) than it is to vote for Amtrak funding as an additional item.

So does anyone see this as not a good idea? This is a huge step in the right direction and could mean intercity passenger rail is eventually brought to equal levels as other modes of transport. Instead of having 500+ managers trying to jerk a company around, Amtrak could now have a few knowledgeable individuals who actually know something about passenger rail to fund various projects.

"There are those who can teach. Those who can't make laws about teaching."

saxman said:

So does anyone see this as not a good idea? This is a huge step in the right direction and could mean intercity passenger rail is eventually brought to equal levels as other modes of transport. Instead of having 500+ managers trying to jerk a company around, Amtrak could now have a few knowledgeable individuals who actually know something about passenger rail to fund various projects.

"There are those who can teach. Those who can't make laws about teaching."

Click to expand...

Very simple: Amtrak is currently defended by some of those same managers, who more or less told Bush II where he could put his zeroed-out appropriation. Locked up under the FRA, without careful action by Congress to avoid redirection, I can see a President simply diverting the FRA (Amtrak) appropriation into freight improvements for a year or two, and that killing off LD operations at the very least.

Anderson said:

I can see a President simply diverting the FRA (Amtrak) appropriation into freight improvements for a year or two, and that killing off LD operations at the very least.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if that would be possible. Otherwise, why have so many of these defense pork projects still proceeded when the administration in power was hostile to them? I'm thinking about additional F-22s, the F-35 additional engine, etc. Those programs are subsets of the DoD, which is under control of the president, but they received all their funding from Congress.

Now, it may be different if the president is able to use a line item veto.

transit54 said:

Anderson said:

I can see a President simply diverting the FRA (Amtrak) appropriation into freight improvements for a year or two, and that killing off LD operations at the very least.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if that would be possible. Otherwise, why have so many of these defense pork projects still proceeded when the administration in power was hostile to them? I'm thinking about additional F-22s, the F-35 additional engine, etc. Those programs are subsets of the DoD, which is under control of the president, but they received all their funding from Congress.

Now, it may be different if the president is able to use a line item veto.

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. I'm a defense contractor, and find it absolutely amazing that the SecDef can sit in front of Congress and say "We do not need this, do not fund it" and yet it will continue to be funded.

Just as an example look at the FAA appropriation. It is not like Congress says "OK FAA you have this lump of money. Go and do stuff as you please with it". Congress sets very clear directive on exactly how that money is to be spent and what that money cannot be spent on. I suspect similar will happen if Amtrak is funded through FRA appropriation.

jis said:

Just as an example look at the FAA appropriation. It is not like Congress says "OK FAA you have this lump of money. Go and do stuff as you please with it". Congress sets very clear directive on exactly how that money is to be spent and what that money cannot be spent on. I suspect similar will happen if Amtrak is funded through FRA appropriation.

Click to expand...

So, in the end, nothing changes.

Ryan said:

transit54 said:

Anderson said:

I can see a President simply diverting the FRA (Amtrak) appropriation into freight improvements for a year or two, and that killing off LD operations at the very least.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if that would be possible. Otherwise, why have so many of these defense pork projects still proceeded when the administration in power was hostile to them? I'm thinking about additional F-22s, the F-35 additional engine, etc. Those programs are subsets of the DoD, which is under control of the president, but they received all their funding from Congress.

Now, it may be different if the president is able to use a line item veto.

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. I'm a defense contractor, and find it absolutely amazing that the SecDef can sit in front of Congress and say "We do not need this, do not fund it" and yet it will continue to be funded.

Click to expand...

The answer to that is pretty simple. The constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress, not the Executive.

Yes, I understand that, thanks. Doesn't mean that I have to like or agree with the boneheaded decisions that they make.