Cuts from 20% to 30%

[LA Resident]

Sobering story that says House Republicans want cuts of 20% (could mean as high as 36% because of funding processes) in Federal programs like transportation to carry out the "voter mandate" they believe they received in November.

So much for building a rail infrastructure (or building or repairing any other infrastructure) in the US...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/politics/04fiscal.html?_r=1&hp

 

[FriskyFL]

Yep, we're well on our way to building a third-world infrastructure.

 

[PRR 60]

To be fair, the following paragraph from the story should be taken into consideration:

...Even if adopted by the House, the Republicans’ budget is unlikely to be enacted in anything like the scale they envision, since Democrats retain a majority in the Senate and President Obama could veto annual appropriations bills making the reductions.

It's called political positioning, and it's done by both sides of the aisle. Remember the "public option?"

 

[haolerider]

To be fair, the following paragraph from the story should be taken into consideration:

...Even if adopted by the House, the Republicans’ budget is unlikely to be enacted in anything like the scale they envision, since Democrats retain a majority in the Senate and President Obama could veto annual appropriations bills making the reductions.

It's called political positioning, and it's done by both sides of the aisle. Remember the "public option?"

This process is to be expected. The Tea Party clammored for changes and now that "the new group" is in, there will be changes, but most people want changes to something other than what they support!! Rail may very well come out a loser, but it is really no different than other parts of the budget that will be cut - no matter how much we all want it to improve and expand.

 

[Tony]

Is this what the people voted for?

Yes.

The problem I have with it, is how it being implemented. Basically, as it as been for centuries, everyone is for spending cuts, as long as their local or favorite project is exempt. And yes, for us, I mean the new rail expendages.

When the "Bush" tax cuts were extended a week or so ago, more pork was added to that bill, than any in history. :help:

I don't remember the people, when they voted for republicans or tea-party challengers, voted their endorsement for more pork, more pork, more pork.

Sorry folks, if achieving a balanced budget means foregoing the Bidden rail initiatives, then sorry, I am all for it. The USA really needs to learn to live within our means.

 

[wayman]

Sorry folks, if achieving a balanced budget means foregoing the Bidden rail initiatives, then sorry, I am all for it. The USA really needs to learn to live within our means.

The USA really needs to learn that our means -- diminished by tax cut after tax cut, further diminished by congressional games to make it harder to use existing revenue to support needed programs -- are insufficient to support a first-world nation.

 

[haolerider]

Is this what the people voted for?

Yes.

The problem I have with it, is how it being implemented. Basically, as it as been for centuries, everyone is for spending cuts, as long as their local or favorite project is exempt. And yes, for us, I mean the new rail expendages.

When the "Bush" tax cuts were extended a week or so ago, more pork was added to that bill, than any in history. :help:

I don't remember the people, when they voted for republicans or tea-party challengers, voted their endorsement for more pork, more pork, more pork.

Sorry folks, if achieving a balanced budget means foregoing the Bidden rail initiatives, then sorry, I am all for it. The USA really needs to learn to live within our means.

Well said. The addition of all that PORK was actually a slap in the face to everyone in the country. What it really means is that politicians will say anything they can to get elected and then do exactly what they want, in spite of the wishes of the people. Who can identify a newly elected politician (from either party) who will admit they campaigned to add more spending to the bills? I had predicted that the Tea Party would have no control over anything after the election, since it was a sham effort to do nothing but eliminate targeted Democrats. They did that, but they replaced them with more spending fools. As mentioned above, the rail efforts may be eliminated, but I have to agree that unless the country begins to learn to live within a budget, we are doomed.

 

[LA Resident]

Is this what the people voted for?

Yes.

The problem I have with it, is how it being implemented. Basically, as it as been for centuries, everyone is for spending cuts, as long as their local or favorite project is exempt. And yes, for us, I mean the new rail expendages.

When the "Bush" tax cuts were extended a week or so ago, more pork was added to that bill, than any in history. :help:

I don't remember the people, when they voted for republicans or tea-party challengers, voted their endorsement for more pork, more pork, more pork.

Sorry folks, if achieving a balanced budget means foregoing the Bidden rail initiatives, then sorry, I am all for it. The USA really needs to learn to live within our means.

Just wondering if you could specify the "pork, pork, pork" that was in that bill.

From all news accounts I read, a bill with much "pork", both Republican and Democrat, was not passed. This was the bill to extend government operations for another year. It was voted down in the Senate because of the pork issue.

So what was the "pork" in the tax extension bill?

In a larger context, the phrase "living within our means" is pretty general. We perhaps could live within our means with a 20% cut to almost every government program, but I'm not sure very many people would enjoy such living. We could perhaps live within our means by not spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on overseas military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We could perhaps live within our means by raising the full retirement age of Social Security by two years.

IN other words, there are alternatives to living within our means apart from the heated and often inaccurate rhetoric of the Tea Party movement.

According to every post-election poll, most voters had very little idea of what they were voting for other than the fact that they didn't like what was going on in the country.

That's hardly a mandate for whacking away at programs that are not pork, but which support the standard of living that everyone always assumes should be part of the American way of life.

(And given that Amtrak is hardly something to brag about now, what would Amtrak look like with a 20% cut? Would all the people on this forum enjoy having to travel to the Northeast to use all of their dearly-garnered AGR points, since that might be the one region where train service remained? And forget about AGR members; what about the need for a decent rail infrastructure for the next 50-100 years? Is that pork? Is that something that has to be offered up on the sacrificial altar of anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric?)

 

[Shanghai]

There is so much "Pork" and "Political Favors" engrained in our Federal Government,

I believe we can cut 20% in our domestic spending and not reduce any subsidies to Amtrak.

The first step would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it was a sensible healthcare system

without the "Louisana Purchase," the "Cornhusker Bribe" and the other bribes in Montana, Connecticut,

Arkansas, Nevada and several other states.

 

[DET63]

Your "pork" and "fat" is my bread and butter.

 

[had8ley]

To be fair, the following paragraph from the story should be taken into consideration:

...Even if adopted by the House, the Republicans’ budget is unlikely to be enacted in anything like the scale they envision, since Democrats retain a majority in the Senate and President Obama could veto annual appropriations bills making the reductions.

It's called political positioning, and it's done by both sides of the aisle. Remember the "public option?"

This process is to be expected. The Tea Party clammored for changes and now that "the new group" is in, there will be changes, but most people want changes to something other than what they support!! Rail may very well come out a loser, but it is really no different than other parts of the budget that will be cut - no matter how much we all want it to improve and expand.

It's truly amazing that Amtrak has had so many detractors since day one but is going to celebrate its 40th birthday in May. Although tempted many times I never swapped over to Amtrak because the same ole story was said every year, "Congress is going to cut Amtrak off next budget go round."

 

[spacecadet]

Sorry folks, if achieving a balanced budget means foregoing the Bidden rail initiatives, then sorry, I am all for it. The USA really needs to learn to live within our means.

Here's a graphic of the 2011 budget.

You tell me that cutting Amtrak is going to do a thing about balancing the budget.

Meanwhile, the Republicans just added hundreds of billions to the deficit by extending tax cuts for the wealthy (which were always intended to be temporary, or they wouldn't have even had *Republican* support at the time they were enacted) and cutting the estate tax, and they're planning to hold a vote in a few days to add $143 billion more to the deficit by repealing health care reform.

Sorry, but this is not about balancing the budget. It's just about politics. If anyone was really serious about balancing the budget, there is only one obvious way to get there, and cutting Amtrak is not it. (Click the "hide mandatory spending" link on the graphic I linked - what remains to be cut is pretty clear.) And I haven't seen either party propose touching that yet, because it's bad politics to do so.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

And to think the DoD used to survive on a meager $400 billion...

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It's called political positioning, and it's done by both sides of the aisle. Remember the "public option?"

To be fair it appears you're not really contesting anything said so far. You apparently acknowledge that Republicans will indeed do their very best to gut our infrastructure spending but will be held back only by their lack of control in the Senate. Any veto by Obama would be a short term obstacle at best. Considering that the so-called Public Option was immediately forfeited prior to any serious debate, let alone given an actual vote, I'm not sure why you even bothered to include it.

 

[henryj]

Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into. But it has evolved into a huge taxpayer supported series of programs of which Amtrak is but a small player. We subsidize airlines, barges, ocean going vessels, trucks, cars, highways, and finally rail. We are now even afraid to raise the fuel exise tax so that the highway budget is having to take from the general fund to make ends meet. Where does it all stop. When bankruptcy looms, that is when. The whole interestate highway system should be toll supported, not taxpayer supported. Airlines should pay for the air traffic controllers, not the feds. Airports should not be tax supported, but paid for by the airlines themselves. The Federal government only has a few key roles to play, the most important of which is providing for out national defense. The other two areas are Social Security and Medicare. Of course the thieves in DC have stolen most of that so it's going bankrupt too. The rest of what they do should fall to the private sector and that would include passenger rail. If it can make money and is a viable alternative then someone will do it. The problem with implementing something like this is the perception that travel would become much more expensive. Well it already is, the costs are just hidden from view.

 

[PRR 60]

It's called political positioning, and it's done by both sides of the aisle. Remember the "public option?"

...You apparently acknowledge that Republicans will indeed do their very best to gut our infrastructure spending but will be held back only by their lack of control in the Senate. Any veto by Obama would be a short term obstacle at best. Considering that the so-called Public Option was immediately forfeited prior to any serious debate, let alone given an actual vote, I'm not sure why you even bothered to include it.

I am acknowledging so such thing, but thank you for putting words in my mouth. I simply quoted a paragraph from the NY Times article that 20 to 30% cuts will not happen (not my words, the NY Times words), and said that the outcome will be a political compromise. That's it.

 

[PennCentralFan]

If you live under repressive republican rule and amtrak runs through your district you need to write your representatives and tell them that you as their constituent depend on amtrak for transportation. You need to say that your vote depends on how they support amtrak and supports the people of your district. Even the most repressive republican wants to get reelected and wants to be seen as someone who cares about their district. Mention how small amtraks portion of the budget is compared to other things.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Just wondering if you could specify the "pork, pork, pork" that was in that bill.

This might help...

Altogether the bill includes more than 6,000 pet projects worth $8 billion, including:
• $80 million to states and Indian tribes to preserve Pacific salmon.

• $2.5 million for bike paths in Illinois.

• $4 million for the Kentucky National Guard to eradicate marijuana.

• $500,000 for transportation improvements at the Bronx Zoo.

• $1 billion to begin funding President Obama's health care law.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I am acknowledging so such thing, but thank you for putting words in my mouth. I simply quoted a paragraph from the NY Times article that 20 to 30% cuts will not happen (not my words, the NY Times words), and said that the outcome will be a political compromise. That's it.

I can only go on what you post. If you disagree with what I said then what part did I get wrong? Yes, we all know the New York Times has an opinion about what will happen but that's not what I'm asking for. I want to know what you think will happen if the GOP/TP regain control over the Senate and/or the White House in 2012. What will hold back the 20-30% cuts from occurring then?

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

• $1 billion to begin funding President Obama's health care law.

A national law, approved by Congress, which will now be entered into the USC is NOT a "pet project"

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

A national law, approved by Congress, which will now be entered into the USC is NOT a "pet project"

I disagree. However, maybe you could explain the direct relationship of this to the tax cut bill?

BTW, there are many nation laws (bills?) that get passed by Congress, but remain unfunded.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

A national law, approved by Congress, which will now be entered into the USC is NOT a "pet project"

I disagree. However, maybe you could explain the direct relationship of this to the tax cut bill?

BTW, there are many nation laws (bills?) that get passed by Congress, but remain unfunded.

This is an issue of fact, not opinion. Every citizen of the country is affected by this bill, and it crosses socio-economic boundries as well as state lines.

Pet projects are typically small items limited to a community or state in order to garner votes. It does not affect the national interest. The health care bill is not a small item, it is not limited to a community, and it most certainly wasn't intended to gain votes.

Care to show where you got that list? It wasn't the CBO, I'll tell you that much. It is an extremely partisan list.

 

[Ryan]

• $1 billion to begin funding President Obama's health care law.

A national law, approved by Congress, which will now be entered into the USC is NOT a "pet project"

That's the beauty of calling something "pork" - it basically means "stuff that I don't want money spent on".

 

I'd love a citation on that list as well.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

The reality is that this country is a plutocracy, and has been since the Constitution was ratified.

There was a perception by the Founding Brothers that "The People" were incapable of running the country, particularly after Shay's Rebellion, and other similar events, scared people into thinking that the country might be headed towards anarchy. Alexander Hamilton was a major advocator of the belief that this country needed seriously wealthy people, as only the super rich could make the capital investments needed on things like transportation projects and industry, which would help to get the economy out of the terrible shape it was in during the 1780s. The Federal Government was burdened with a huge debt from the Revolution and had almost no power to change the situation under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution permitted a stronger Federal Government which, in turn, was able to create policies that got rid of the deficit and that could steer the economy.

Draw what conclusions from all this you want, but the reality is that politics in the country are geared towards the wealthy. Just look at the Wall Street bailout as an recent example.

 

[Anderson]

Allow me to weigh in: People didn't vote for much of anything. They voted against a lot, and such has been the case over the last few cycles. I think the narrow margins and lousy approval ratings for a number of the winners bear this out. To be fair, I think there's a lot of consternation over the spike in spending over the last few years (and how it's been used...TARP leaps to mind). The problem is that the only way to vote against TARP and the like effectively was, in many seats, to vote for a tea party type. And if you're irritated enough at the devil you know, you'll vote for the one you don't out of sheer frustration.

I think the best explanation of this is down in Florida, where Rick Scott got elected in spite of an approval rating in the mid-30s (and at net -20 in one PPP poll) while Alex Sink had a net approval rating of +2 in that same poll (44-42 for Sink vs. 34-54 for Scott).

One thing I'll say is that with a little bit of luck, someone will take a lightsaber (an axe being insufficient for the job) to support for the airlines and airports and tell them to pay for their own security while meeting certain standards. That's ten times as much money as Amtrak gets annually from the federal government and somewhere close to that for federal and state support combined (I think it came out to about $5 billion and change).