Cuts from 20% to 30%

[ALC Rail Writer]

And highways, don't forget the highways Anderson.

 

[Ryan]

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.

That's a ridiculous fairy tale. Transport isn't profitable. Can't be without raising the cost for goods and services across the board and throwing the economy into even more of a tailspin.
A robust transportation network is necessary for interstate commerce and is clearly within the Federal government's purview.

 

[Anderson]

Well, my view is that while nice, road cuts won't have the same immediate impact that air cuts will have. Passing $5 billion onto the airlines will result in a charge going onto tickets. Cutting twice that on roads, and you get...poorly-maintained roads. Which doesn't sound at all like the railroads in the 1950s, now, does it?

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

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.

That's a ridiculous fairy tale. Transport isn't profitable. Can't be without raising the cost for goods and services across the board and throwing the economy into even more of a tailspin.
A robust transportation network is necessary for interstate commerce and is clearly within the Federal government's purview.

Rome knew that much, and they lasted centuries longer than we have.

 

[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.

That's a ridiculous fairy tale. Transport isn't profitable. Can't be without raising the cost for goods and services across the board and throwing the economy into even more of a tailspin.
A robust transportation network is necessary for interstate commerce and is clearly within the Federal government's purview.

Actually transport is highly profitable and our freight railroads prove it every day inspite of their subsidized competition. Passenger rail was once profitable until the Feds decided to build an interstate highway system and offer it up virtually free to use. The costs are hidden in the fed gasoline excise tax so people don't even realize they are paying for it. But now even that tax is inadequate. Had the system been set up as a privately run toll supported system the results would have been far different. Similarly, the airline industry was thought to need help getting itself established hence the Fed subsidies and local subsidies building airports, paying for the traffic controllers, etc. that are still with us today. The idea that these things can't be fixed without throwing the economy into a tailspin is what got us where we are today. Socialism or the 'nanny state' is not free as Europeans find out every day. If we want to continue this road then taxes are inevitably going to go up and not just a little bit. What do you think that will do to the economy? You either quit spending or you bring in more revenue to support your spending.

 

[dlagrua]

The deficit spending must be brought under control otherwise bankruptcy of the USA is imminent. However, Amtrak is but a miniscule portion (2-3%) of the Federal Transportation budget. You don't cure run-a-way spending by cutting pennies. If you closed Amtrak completely it wouldn't make a noticable difference in the deficit. The cuts must be massive to make a difference.

Rail travel may also become far more important as gasoline rises to the $5 per gallon level (by 2012) forcasted recently by an oil industry analyst. I do not believe that Amtrak is going away anytime soon and forget about high speed rail as except for the NE corridor,there is little demand for it. I also do not believe that the private railroads have any interest in getting back into passenger rail. It is because they all dropped out that Amtrak exists today.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

The deficit spending must be brought under control otherwise bankruptcy of the USA is imminent. However, Amtrak is but a miniscule portion (2-3%) of the Federal Transportation budget. You don't cure run-a-way spending by cutting pennies. If you closed Amtrak completely it wouldn't make a noticable difference in the deficit. The cuts must be massive to make a difference.

To add to that, the USDOT is a small part of the Federal budget. So Amtrak is a miniscule portion of a small part.

 

[daveyb99]

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.

You are wrong.

 

[daveyb99]

The deficit spending must be brought under control otherwise bankruptcy of the USA is imminent. However, Amtrak is but a miniscule portion (2-3%) of the Federal Transportation budget. You don't cure run-a-way spending by cutting pennies. If you closed Amtrak completely it wouldn't make a noticable difference in the deficit. The cuts must be massive to make a difference.

To add to that, the USDOT is a small part of the Federal budget. So Amtrak is a miniscule portion of a small part.

Percentage does not matter. Given the chance, Republicans would ditch AMTRAK in a heartbeat. IN A HEARTBEAT.

 

[Anderson]

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.

That's a ridiculous fairy tale. Transport isn't profitable. Can't be without raising the cost for goods and services across the board and throwing the economy into even more of a tailspin.
A robust transportation network is necessary for interstate commerce and is clearly within the Federal government's purview.

Actually transport is highly profitable and our freight railroads prove it every day inspite of their subsidized competition. Passenger rail was once profitable until the Feds decided to build an interstate highway system and offer it up virtually free to use. The costs are hidden in the fed gasoline excise tax so people don't even realize they are paying for it. But now even that tax is inadequate. Had the system been set up as a privately run toll supported system the results would have been far different. Similarly, the airline industry was thought to need help getting itself established hence the Fed subsidies and local subsidies building airports, paying for the traffic controllers, etc. that are still with us today. The idea that these things can't be fixed without throwing the economy into a tailspin is what got us where we are today. Socialism or the 'nanny state' is not free as Europeans find out every day. If we want to continue this road then taxes are inevitably going to go up and not just a little bit. What do you think that will do to the economy? You either quit spending or you bring in more revenue to support your spending.

I think there's a fair point to be made on what, exactly, the gas tax should be, and whether certain roads should be tolled. As I understand it in New Jersey, the big network of turnpikes they have actually makes a profit for their whole expressway system most years.

 

[daveyb99]

Here's a graphic of the 2011 budget.

AWESOME chart. Most who think we can "cut spending" need to spend some time learning what exactly we spend money on first, THEN give it a try.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

The deficit spending must be brought under control otherwise bankruptcy of the USA is imminent. However, Amtrak is but a miniscule portion (2-3%) of the Federal Transportation budget. You don't cure run-a-way spending by cutting pennies. If you closed Amtrak completely it wouldn't make a noticable difference in the deficit. The cuts must be massive to make a difference.

To add to that, the USDOT is a small part of the Federal budget. So Amtrak is a miniscule portion of a small part.

Percentage does not matter. Given the chance, Republicans would ditch AMTRAK in a heartbeat. IN A HEARTBEAT.

Only because it's an easy target.

 

[daveyb99]

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.

(1) Transportation is one of the few federal programs which covers a significant portion of it expenditures by fuel taxes (paid into the Highway Trust Fund), ticket taxes for air passengers and cargo (paid into the Airways Trust Fund to fund FAA operations (including controllers) just to name two. Airlines (and general aviation) pay landing fees (or other monies) to support airport operations - they are not fully funded by your tax dollars.

No one is ready to raise the fuels tax (for fear of being called a Tax Hike Supporter), and since cost of materials goes up, the funding gap must be made up from general revenues --- TRUE. But how do you oppose that since dang near everything goes over a road somewhere.

(2) The "Interstate Highway System" is not a transportation project, it was a defense project (see National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956). States which "TOLL" an interstate pay federal fuel tax but do not get monies back as they get tolls instead. So their citizens are paying twice, in effect.

 

[daveyb99]

... 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.

Bush TARP funds in 2008 were spent and never paid back -- a net loss of approx $700 BILLION

Obama TARP funds in 2009 were spent and PAID BACK, at a profit to taxpayers --- a net gain of ~$25 BILLION

... 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).

Uh, that's the way it was pre-9/11. TSA airport screening is paid by the passenger via the $2.50 September 11 Security Fee per enplanement. Want to shift that to the airlines, then guaranteed it will go to a low bidder but cost way more than $2.50.....

And for the record, I would rather have a semi-professional civil servant body search me than some part time-no benefits-minimum wage paying-low bid contractor...

 

[daveyb99]

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

The ones chanting such things have no specifics, no ideas, nothing positive -- just chanting.

 

[Ryan]

Actually transport is highly profitable and our freight railroads prove it every day inspite of their subsidized competition. Passenger rail was once profitable until the Feds decided to build an interstate highway system and offer it up virtually free to use.

I was talking about the moving of people, not goods in the first paragraph, so the freight RRs don't count. The genie isn't going to go back in the battle, people expect to be able to move about cheaply.

The costs are hidden in the fed gasoline excise tax so people don't even realize they are paying for it. But now even that tax is inadequate. Had the system been set up as a privately run toll supported system the results would have been far different.

If things had been done different, of course things would have ended differently. But they weren't, so we have to live in the world where people expect a free ride. The gas tax should be increased to cover expenses of maintaining roads, AND levy it as a percentage (not a flat dollar value).

If we want to continue this road then taxes are inevitably going to go up and not just a little bit. What do you think that will do to the economy? You either quit spending or you bring in more revenue to support your spending.

Sure thing, how do you propose to do that?

 

[Ryan]

... 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.

Bush TARP funds in 2008 were spent and never paid back -- a net loss of approx $700 BILLION

Obama TARP funds in 2009 were spent and PAID BACK, at a profit to taxpayers --- a net gain of ~$25 BILLION

Don't go confusing the issue with facts and stuff.

 

[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.

(1) Transportation is one of the few federal programs which covers a significant portion of it expenditures by fuel taxes (paid into the Highway Trust Fund), ticket taxes for air passengers and cargo (paid into the Airways Trust Fund to fund FAA operations (including controllers) just to name two. Airlines (and general aviation) pay landing fees (or other monies) to support airport operations - they are not fully funded by your tax dollars.

No one is ready to raise the fuels tax (for fear of being called a Tax Hike Supporter), and since cost of materials goes up, the funding gap must be made up from general revenues --- TRUE. But how do you oppose that since dang near everything goes over a road somewhere.

(2) The "Interstate Highway System" is not a transportation project, it was a defense project (see National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956). States which "TOLL" an interstate pay federal fuel tax but do not get monies back as they get tolls instead. So their citizens are paying twice, in effect.

I think, Davey, that you are forgetting that railroads pay property and income taxes on every thing they own and make. Interstate highways, state operated toll roads, etc. make no such contribution nor do city owned airports. There is much to change if you want to level the playing field. Otherwise then Amtrak will just have to compete for those Federal tax dollars along with everyone else. But someone will still have to pay the bill eventually.

 

[daveyb99]

I think, Davey, that you are forgetting that railroads pay property and income taxes on every thing they own and make. Interstate highways, state operated toll roads, etc. make no such contribution nor do city owned airports. There is much to change if you want to level the playing field.

Are you saying Highways and Airports - owned by governmental bodies - should pay property taxes to - themselves ??

 

[henryj]

The genie isn't going to go back in the battle, people expect to be able to move about cheaply.

Not really. They will accept whatever is offered to them.

But they weren't, so we have to live in the world where people expect a free ride. The gas tax should be increased to cover expenses of maintaining roads, AND levy it as a percentage (not a flat dollar value).

Apparently no one has the guts to do even that. In fact McCain proposed suspending the gasoline tax to stimulate the economy even as the system is falling apart from lack of funds.

If we want to continue this road then taxes are inevitably going to go up and not just a little bit. What do you think that will do to the economy? You either quit spending or you bring in more revenue to support your spending.

Sure thing, how do you propose to do that?

Well I don't think either party will have the guts to raise taxes as it would be political suicide. Neither will they be able to cut spending enough to do any real good. So I think the inevitable result will be eventual bankruptcy of the country. When it reaches crises levels then something will be done simply because it has too as in Greece or we will end up like Zimbabwe. Expect riots in the streets.

 

[Anderson]

... 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.

Bush TARP funds in 2008 were spent and never paid back -- a net loss of approx $700 BILLION

Obama TARP funds in 2009 were spent and PAID BACK, at a profit to taxpayers --- a net gain of ~$25 BILLION

Don't go confusing the issue with facts and stuff.

*ahem*

It's the same money: Obama is getting a fair share of the money paid back (with interest, in many cases) that was doled out under Dubya. Moreover, most of that $700 billion didn't get out the door in 2008...to quote Wikipedia's article on TARP (out of convenience more than anything; added emphasis is mine): "The first $350 billion was released on October 3, 2008, and Congress voted to approve the release of the second $350 billion on January 15, 2009. One way that TARP money is being spent is to support the "Making Homes Affordable" plan, which was implemented on March 4, 2009, using TARP money by the Department of Treasury." I also cite "On February 10, 2009, the newly confirmed Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner outlined his plan to use the $300 billion or so remaining in the TARP funds." While the second batch was technically authorized while Bush was still in office, the Treasury didn't use most of that money until Obama was in the door...Obama could arguably have put a hold on using the money temporarily (not impounding...just slowing things down and working on revisions to the program) if he'd seen a substantial need to. Thus, the program has been administered over two administrations and both have a share of the credit or blame.

Unfortunately, a lot of people see a program that was not clearly disclosed nor well-handled (particularly at the outset...a lot of the issues with bonuses only came up well after the first round of money was out the door). They also more closely associate its handling over the last two years with Obama than the Republicans...primarily because regardless of whether Bush got the program going, the present administration has had more or less total control over the program for two years now. Also, noting the point about the $700 billion: Seeing as $300 billion of it was remaining in February, 2009, it is simply impossible to blame Bush for losing money that he did not spend.

Edit: TARP isn't alone...the stimulus is a major factor, as is the healthcare bill, and the three put together have a price tag that I think a lot of people balked at.

Edit 2: One other point leaps to mind that I want to put here...voters are, regrettably, not motivated by facts, but rather what they perceive as facts. A wonderful case in point is the **** about Obama being born somewhere other than the US...something that I must regrettably rebut with care with close family members and even with colleagues in some organizations. This is not a fact, but it is taken as such by a great many voters. So when you make an off comment about "Don't go confusing the issue with facts and stuff", a response comes to mind: "Don't worry, people won't." And very frequently, they don't.

 

[AlanB]

Percentage does not matter. Given the chance, Republicans would ditch AMTRAK in a heartbeat. IN A HEARTBEAT.

The Republican's have already had two chances under President George W Bush to kill Amtrak. Two years running, Republican George W Bush allowed his White House to send over to Congress a budget with zero funding dollars for Amtrak.

Both times the Republican Controlled Congress said "No, Mr. President, we're going to keep funding Amtrak." And they restored the funding back to at least the prior year's level, if not slightly higher both times.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Two years running, Republican George W Bush allowed his White House to send over to Congress a budget with zero funding dollars for Amtrak. Both times the Republican Controlled Congress said "No, Mr. President, we're going to keep funding Amtrak."

Not this again. How many Republicans who supposedly support Amtrak at current or expanded funding levels are being sworn-in for the 112th Congress Alan? I want actual names, not just some vague unattributed quote.

 

[AlanB]

Two years running, Republican George W Bush allowed his White House to send over to Congress a budget with zero funding dollars for Amtrak. Both times the Republican Controlled Congress said "No, Mr. President, we're going to keep funding Amtrak."

Not this again. How many Republicans who supposedly support Amtrak at current or expanded funding levels are being sworn-in for the 112th Congress Alan? I want actual names, not just some vague unattributed quote.

I have no idea how many of the current Republican's support Amtrak or not, much less how many of them were in office during the Bush years. And I have neither the time nor the desire to go figure all of that out.

And for as long as the Senate remains in Democratic control, the House Republicans will be unable to kill Amtrak. They may be able to hurt it a bit, but they will have to reconcile their bill with the Senate's.

However, the point of my entire post however was that, not all Republicans are opposed to Amtrak. And I'm tired of that insinuation that all Republicans hate Amtrak. It couldn't be further from the truth and it's time for people to stop saying that nonsense!

 

[AlanB]

However, the point of my entire post however was that, not all Republicans are opposed to Amtrak. And I'm tired of that insinuation that all Republicans hate Amtrak. It couldn't be further from the truth and it's time for people to stop saying that nonsense!

And frankly the more that the Dem's repeat that nonsense, the more likely it is that more and more of the Republican voters might actually start to beleive it.