Obama on Amtrak

[wayman]

Here's

of a May 3rd speech in Indianapolis (was this posted here already?). Skip ahead to 18:20 and listen for the next couple minutes. Sure, "high-speed rail" would take a miracle, but it's great to have a candidate so clearly pro-Amtrak and pro-mass transit. Simply getting solid infrastructure and policy bills passed would make a world of difference.

 

[Rail Freak]

Here's

Now he's cookin with gas!

That's what my grandfater use to say when he agreed with someone!!!

 

[saxman]

Well I heard Clinton's and McCain's solution to high gas prices: cut the federal gas tax for a few months. What's that a whopping 18 cents a gallon? When bridges are falling into rivers and the Highway Trust Fund on the verge of bankruptcy, I hardly think this will help any.

 

[the_traveler]

Well I heard Clinton's and McCain's solution to high gas prices: cut the federal gas tax for a few months. What's that a whopping 18 cents a gallon?

And if the gas tax (if 18 cents) is dropped for a short time, do you REALLY think gas prices will drop by 18 cents AND oil companies will pay it instead? I think they may pay it for a short time, but when it returns, the price will go up more - to make up for the "lost profits"!

 

[dan72]

Well I heard Clinton's and McCain's solution to high gas prices: cut the federal gas tax for a few months. What's that a whopping 18 cents a gallon? When bridges are falling into rivers and the Highway Trust Fund on the verge of bankruptcy, I hardly think this will help any.

I agree. While I'm no fan of excessive taxes, these so-called 'tax holidays' on gasoline are just candy treats that politicians are passing out. If anything, if you artificially lower the price, create even more demand, and ultimately drive it up even higher. I'm no economist, but supply and demand would seem to apply here on this proposal...

Dan

 

[Rail Freak]

Well I heard Clinton's and McCain's solution to high gas prices: cut the federal gas tax for a few months. What's that a whopping 18 cents a gallon? When bridges are falling into rivers and the Highway Trust Fund on the verge of bankruptcy, I hardly think this will help any.

I agree. While I'm no fan of excessive taxes, these so-called 'tax holidays' on gasoline are just candy treats that politicians are passing out. If anything, if you artificially lower the price, create even more demand, and ultimately drive it up even higher. I'm no economist, but supply and demand would seem to apply here on this proposal...

Dan

Is it like a barrel of oil's bucket price?

 

[RailFanLNK]

Instead of lowering the gas tax, I think they should just cut all of us Americans checks for $600 every week for the next year so we can get the economy rolling! Sheesh, if they would do that, we could lease private varnish for the Gathering in LAX and just think how much fun that would be. Lowering the gas tax by 18 cents this summer is stupid, along with handing out checks to all of us Americans so we can go blow it.

 

[Rail Freak]

Instead of lowering the gas tax, I think they should just cut all of us Americans checks for $600 every week for the next year so we can get the economy rolling! Sheesh, if they would do that, we could lease private varnish for the Gathering in LAX and just think how much fun that would be. Lowering the gas tax by 18 cents this summer is stupid, along with handing out checks to all of us Americans so we can go blow it.

I'm gonna follow everyone to Walmart, that way I know every dollar goes to support the businesses we sent to China! :angry:

 

[George Harris]

Here's

Sounds nice, but what has he DONE about it while in the Senate? I think you will find the answer is nothing. If I want to see good looking niceley dressed air-heads that know how to talk a good show, I will watch a movie.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Instead of lowering the gas tax, I think they should just cut all of us Americans checks for $600 every week for the next year so we can get the economy rolling! Sheesh, if they would do that, we could lease private varnish for the Gathering in LAX and just think how much fun that would be. Lowering the gas tax by 18 cents this summer is stupid, along with handing out checks to all of us Americans so we can go blow it.

I'd say sending checks to people so they can just spend them is probably the best solution, to be honest with you. Our economy is being punched heavily on all sides. It is not a recession we have entered into, Al. It will be a depression. What we need to get this economy moving again is to dump money into it. People blowing that money is exactly what is needed.

See, you get the $600, right? You go and buy various stuff with that money. Those people get your money, and can go spend it elsewhere. And so forth.

 

[BobWeaver]

Here's

It was great to see the reaction of the audience too. It was much more than what I had expected.

 

[wayman]

Here's

Well, a quick look into the matter shows that while in the Senate, he

* denounced (and voted against) the Bush Administration's Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act (2005), which might have severely curtailed or ended long-distance routes, saying "It strikes me that we should make a greater investment in upgrading our rail system rather than eliminating the subsidies that already exist. If you look at the amount of subsidies that we provide the highways relative to the subsidies that we provide rail transportation, it pales in comparison."

* urged the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, in a letter co-signed by Dick Durbin, to fund the Chicago Region Environmental And Transportation Efficiency Program, "designed to modernize the Chicago railroad system and ... significantly reduce rail and motorist traffic congestion, protect and promote local economic development, and decrease dependence on foreign crude oil." (Infrastructure improvements to benefit both freight and passenger rail, specifically mentioning Amtrak as a beneficiary)

* co-sponsored (and voted for) the Lautenburg-Lott Passenger Rail Investment and Innovation Act (2007), which would provide years of increased federal funding to Amtrak

As part of his campaign, he

* proposed a carbon cap-and-trade program which would benefit Amtrak financially by allowing it to trade excess carbon credits

* traveled the Keystone line, giving great publicity for Amtrak and speaking to America's transportation infrastructure needs at each station stop

* had lunch with a Beech Grove Amtrak machinist and his family. How many presidential candidates have actually gone so far as to sit down with someone on Mike Fischer's level (as opposed to Alex Kummant's) and say "So tell me stories--I want to hear about what's going on with Amtrak"?

For a head-to-head-to-head comparison, try this. No, campaign platforms do not translate directly into actions and achievements. But campaign platforms, supported by a track record of working for legislation in those areas, speak well; and a cursory mention of an issue, or a lack of mention coupled with a track record against, speak rather more poorly.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Of the three candidates, it will come as no surprise that I support Obama.

However, lets not saint the man here. I'd say that his platform gives some idea of where he wants to go, but he is still a politician, so he will promise some things people want to hear even if he knows he can't get it done.

 

[Chris J.]

I'm gonna follow everyone to Walmart, that way I know every dollar goes to support the businesses we sent to China! :angry:

According to a some (rather drunk) woman in a bar in DC the best way to keep the money in the US is to spend it on beer. Glad to see she was doing her bit for the economy. :lol:

 

[MStrain]

Chris J.......

As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Beer is proof that God wants man to be happy."

Drink a Yuengling!!!!

after 1

after 3

:blink: after 6

 

[JxGx78]

Bryan Caplan, an economist from George Mason University, had this opinion piece in the New York Times yesterday. Its the strongest defense of the gas tax plan I've seen from an economist. His argument basically boiled down to it is a less bad way for politicians to show they are doing something about high fuel prices. I personally think everyone is flipping out about nothing gas prices are not that far above the long run inflation adjusted trend of $3 a gallon, and since gas prices were below trend for a long time it is reasonable to believe they will be above trend for a while.

 

[transit54]

Bryan Caplan, an economist from George Mason University, had this opinion piece in the New York Times yesterday. Its the strongest defense of the gas tax plan I've seen from an economist. His argument basically boiled down to it is a less bad way for politicians to show they are doing something about high fuel prices. I personally think everyone is flipping out about nothing gas prices are not that far above the long run inflation adjusted trend of $3 a gallon, and since gas prices were below trend for a long time it is reasonable to believe they will be above trend for a while.

The biggest problem I have with removing the gas tax is the lack of real leadership that's been done in the area of transportation lately. I've immensely opposed to removing the gas tax because I don't think the solution is to encourage the consumption of gasoline (and it also won't make all that much a difference). However, I'll give the politicians a pass on the pandering if they actually proposed some decent long term solutions in addition to some 'short term relief.' If Clinton or McCain came out and said, "We have a problem - America is dependent on a single form of fuel, and a single method of transportation. In light of that, in the short term, I'm proposing that we reduce the gas tax to provide some relief to Americans who have no other choice but to be dependent on this country's highway and roadway as a sole means of transportation. But this is not a long term solution - in the long run, we will need to invest massively in our country's transit infrastructure, in our railways and in our transportation grid. We need to become a country that provides its citizens the option of how to get around - not burden hard working families with oppressive gas prices and high maintenance costs. In the long run, we must realize that driving - and energy - will continue to get more expensive, and that while should invest in efficient alternatives such as electric cars, we need to begin making transit and infrastructure a priority."

Now, of course, none of this requires lifting the gas tax (in fact, it probably requires raising it). I just haven't seen this issue addressed seriously by any politician. There are those who are better (Obama seems to be one of them), and those who are worse, but no one has made energy and transportation a major part of their campaign, even though it seems that this crisis seems to be affecting a lot of people.

 

[wayman]

Chris J.......
As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Beer is proof that God wants man to be happy."

Drink a Yuengling!!!!

after 1

after 3

:blink: after 6

I'll drink to that :lol:

But Yuenglings are a little hard to come by in Portland. Fortunately, there are lots of other choices.

 

[JxGx78]

The biggest problem I have with removing the gas tax is the lack of real leadership that's been done in the area of transportation lately. I've immensely opposed to removing the gas tax because I don't think the solution is to encourage the consumption of gasoline (and it also won't make all that much a difference). However, I'll give the politicians a pass on the pandering if they actually proposed some decent long term solutions in addition to some 'short term relief.' If Clinton or McCain came out and said, "We have a problem - America is dependent on a single form of fuel, and a single method of transportation. In light of that, in the short term, I'm proposing that we reduce the gas tax to provide some relief to Americans who have no other choice but to be dependent on this country's highway and roadway as a sole means of transportation. But this is not a long term solution - in the long run, we will need to invest massively in our country's transit infrastructure, in our railways and in our transportation grid. We need to become a country that provides its citizens the option of how to get around - not burden hard working families with oppressive gas prices and high maintenance costs. In the long run, we must realize that driving - and energy - will continue to get more expensive, and that while should invest in efficient alternatives such as electric cars, we need to begin making transit and infrastructure a priority."
Now, of course, none of this requires lifting the gas tax (in fact, it probably requires raising it). I just haven't seen this issue addressed seriously by any politician. There are those who are better (Obama seems to be one of them), and those who are worse, but no one has made energy and transportation a major part of their campaign, even though it seems that this crisis seems to be affecting a lot of people.

The thing I fear the most is 'real' leadership on transportation. If the market is allowed to work alternatives will be developed, most likely rail. The problem is politicians have made choices over the last 60 years that have forced us down a path that is very dependent on low energy/oil prices. The national highway system and the reliance on air travel were not market determined transportation systems, but politician determined systems. These systems seemed like a good idea at the time, but hindsight shows that they also had some very undesirable results (i.e.: urban sprawl, green house gasses, a requirement to import a large amount of oil, making established mass transit systems impractical). Now that the downside of the government policy is being revealed there is a push do something anything again, when what they need to do is let the market work.

When people have exceptions fuel prices will stay high they change their behavior (this is starting now). People start buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and began to change their mode of transportation for long distant travel. This summer I'm taking my first Amtrak trip from Birmingham to NYC, I have always flown in the past. But this time Amtrak was half the price of flying ($230 round trip vs $476 for flying). Since I'm a grad student with more time than money I'm taking the train. Now I realize that Amtrak is not a market determined business, but neither are airlines. Hack I'd argue that airlines have received more government subsidies in the last decade than Amtrak has. But my point is the best thing politicians can do is stop picking winners and losers and let the market decided. Everyone will be shocked at how effective the spontaneous order of the market is!!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

In my opinion, the best solution is another "New Deal" in which the government pours money into the American economy by putting people to work building new high-speed rail infrastructure, new or expanded toll roads, tolls on interstate highways, better long distance rail infrastructure, new equipment, and especially more urban mass transit systems. I would like to see them pay for this via the tolls on interstate highways, and appropriately raised tolls on roads in general.

It costs about 70 cents for every 30 miles on the Garden State Parkway. I think it should cost more like $10. The cost of me running my car on the road is not even remotely covered under the current schemes. I also a major advocate of so-called congestion charging. I applaud Jon Corzine for having the guts to suggest raising tolls on NJ roadways, and I really cheer on Michael Bloomberg for having the guts to suggest congestion charging in NYC. There are excellent ways to get around Manhattan, and none of them involve personal transport vehicles.

This is a free country, and if someone wants to drive their single self in their Ford Excursion from the Monmouth Shore to NY, and then around Manhattans streets and consuming 20 gallons of fuel and putting out tons of emissions, they can. They have the right! They also have the right to pay $1 in tax for every one of those gallons, $3 for every hour they run the thing on the congested streets of Manhattan, and $40 for the privlidge of using the roads to get there and back. He also has the right- the option- to spend $20 bucks round trip to take the North Jersey Coast Line, and $4 round trip to use the subway. And the money collected from the fools who don't want to take advantage of the system can be used to improve it.

 

[JxGx78]

@ Green Maned Lion

I agree with your intentions, but completely disagree with your implementation. I'm a big laissez-faire kind of guy so that is the paradigm that I view the world through, I tend to describe myself as a left-leaning libertarian. I think if someone wants to drive a Ford Excursion they should have to pay every penny of there trip, and if someone wants to take the train or mass transit they should have to pay for there trip as well. I believe the market is the best means to determine what that rate is, and how resources should be allocated. I have no faith that politicians understand what is needed, there is no way for them to have the specific knowledge needed to make the necessary decisions until its to late. I know the market is far from perfect, but the politically derived system we have now is even worse. It was government roads, airports and regulation that killed rail passenger travel in this country not market forces.

The problem now is that there are more highways and airlines then would be supported if users had to pay anything close to the actual cost of use. You can see it now with politicians complaining about the airline mergers. This is simply the fact that there to much capacity working itself out, and costumers will have to pay a higher rate for air travel. This is a good thing for other moods of transportation, but the transition is painful. It is made more painful by the fact that politicians placed all the nations eggs in one basket (one that depended on cheap oil).

The thing that pains me the most as a libertarian is that I fear you are right about the need for government support to redevelop mass transit. I live in Birmingham, AL a city the used to have a very extensive trolley car system until the local politicians decided to back highways and literally paved over the trolley car system (which had operated as a for profit business). Now the city government is spending $33 million to rebuild a 1.75 mile street car line that used to exist. But I have little faith the politician can or will make the decisions that will promote long-term sustainable growth.

 

[transit54]

I agree with you, that the market will allow things to work out, provided that the true economic price of goods is charged. The issue is this: when one purchases gasoline, for instance, they only pay the cost a firm is charging for the gasoline. They don't pay for the pollution generated by their vehicle, their greenhouse gas emissions, the cost of congestion that their vehicle adds to the road, and the like. Ultimately, in economics these things are termed 'externalities,' in this case, we're dealing with negative externalities. The way to eliminate externalities is to apply a tax to reduce demand, which should lower their consumption to the socially optimal level.

The problem is that, other than that drivers don't pay their own way, that externalities are likely to result if true market prices are charged. If the appropriate taxes are levied, then absolutely, market forces will work things out. The problem is that I think it would harder to get to that kind of a society than it would be to simply directly fund transit through the government. I'm in the process of getting hired by a transit agency, and one thing that's very clear up front is that transit, in its current form, doesn't pay for itself. We can't even launch a new route without finding funding for it first. Whether that's simply a function of transit, or whether that's a function of the proper prices not being charged, I don't know, but things ultimately need to change.

 

[Larry H.]

I recall another president called "Clinton" that campaigned on high speed rail and rail system improvements. Once in office Nothing happened!

Granted it might be the total picture to blame which could easily happen again.. No matter how much some may want or support something in the Senate the republicans can figure ways to block it till it dies. I voted for Clinton that time on the basis of his support for rail, which as I mentioned never took place. I don't know what will happen if Obama were to win.. We would have to have a lot of rail lines connecting Mexico to hold all the passengers coming north.. But you take the good with the bad.

 

[iron mountain]

If you folks are interested in an excellent analysis of the oil issue as it pertains to the United States specifically, the world in general, and to all of our futures, go to the website of Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R MD). It is the first cogent discussion that I have read addressing the issue of energy. The Honorable Congressman is remarkably apolitical. His report is a bit academic. But please take a little time and read it.

As to Obama, the only thing this guy has right is passenger rail development. I don't want a far left wing type simply because he says he is for railroads. If, as another of the wiser contributors mentioned, we let the market influence choices we will all benefit. And, as a couple of the wiser contributors to this blog have said, one person in the White House is not going to make a modern high tech rail system happen. It has to be an effort by Chambers of Commerce, state legislators, activist gtroups, indiviuals writing their national representatives, to influence the federal government to partner effectively to develop a modern system. I write my reps in Washington and Jefferson City regularly about rail transportation. I also belong to NARP. Whether you agtree wioth them or not they do have a voice.

I disagree with President Bush as to his attitude on Amtrak. But I remind myself that providing some folks with a train to ride around on is not his responsibility. The first responsibility of the president is to keep us safe. The current administration has done that. Civics 101 , the Congress makes the laws, not the President.

One of you individuals have cited thugs like Castro and Chavez as "basically good people". That scares me. The implication being, that the current adminstration doesn't care. Boo Hoo! Come on! Mussolini and Hitler were lauded because the trains ran on time. Be careful what you wish for.

I have bitten my tongue and refrained from responding several times when I have read some absurd political comments on Amtrak Unlimited. I wish the politics could be left out of it as much as possible. I have enjoyed this website because of its good discussion about rail travel not personal politics.

My final thought is that passenger rail service will grow because it makes more sense all of the time. Ultimately, the market forces will make it happen. But remember many of the "socialist" goodies we have are paid for by a capitalist market driven economy.

 

[George Harris]

In my opinion, the best solution is another "New Deal" in which the government pours money into the American economy by putting people to work building new high-speed rail infrastructure, new or expanded toll roads, tolls on interstate highways, better long distance rail infrastructure, new equipment, and especially more urban mass transit systems.

The little jiblet of history that tends to be forgotten when talking about the New Deal programs: It was rational for the national government to borrow large sums of money at that time because the national government was almost debt-free at the start of the depression. During the "boom years" of the 1920's most of the debt incurred during WW1 had been paid off. That paying down of the debt did not happen after WW2, and the situation was worse, in that the War Bonds debt were piled on top of the New Deal debts. At this point when the government is in debt up to its eyeballs to add debt would be a form of insanity. This country was also a major exporter with lots of good paying industrial jobs until after WW2, which helped bring in money, bot nationally and into the natioal treasury. You can't collect income taxes off people that have no income, and the proportion of rich people is too small for these silly soak the rich tax proposals to make any real difference.

GML: New York and environs is not the whole country. What applies there does not much of anywhere outside the northeast. If you dirve up the cost of driving very much you are hurting a lot of poeple that at this time have no alternative.