Bush Budget Kills RRIF Program

[Anonymous]

FY06 budget has no funds for RRIF loans

The proposed federal budget for FY2006 would cut off funding for the Federal Railroad Administration’s five-year-old Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program. This is "consistent with the Administration’s intent to eliminate corporate subsidies," said the budget document.

The latest of eight loans made so far under the program was announced a few weeks ago. It was for $7.5 million and went to the 53-mile Great Smoky Mountains Railroad, primarily a tourist road.

From Railway Age Magazine

[vsmith]

Just to fair, how about ending subsidies to the failing airline industry also, then let see how much fun doing business in this country is. I think you'll find that under the ending "corporate subsidies" in reality will be targeted at those subidies with the least influence in DC, do anyone seriously think Bush's biggest campain corporate contributors will see dollar one cut from their feeding trough? more likely this program will cut funding in one place , and increase it to the fat cat supporters. Big $$$ will always get thier share.

[Anonymous]

vsmith, you're a cynic. But I think you have justification in this case.

OS

[Anonymous]

I agree with you vsmith, but I wouldn't worry too much about the airlines. The huge bailouts being given to the airlines are outrageous and sooner or later the public is going to demand a stop to this. Better sooner than later.

[Anonymous]

AMAIR? Yeesh...

[CSXrules4eva]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Just to fair, how about ending subsidies to the failing airline industry also, then let see how much fun doing business in this country is. I think you'll find that under the ending "corporate subsidies" in reality will be targeted at those subidies with the least influence in DC, do anyone seriously think Bush's biggest campain corporate contributors will see dollar one cut from their feeding trough? more likely this program will cut funding in one place , and increase it to the fat cat supporters. Big $$$ will always get thier share.

WORD brother!! I agree with you 100%. Ya know something I have to add to this. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see a peice of legislation going through congress that would cut funding to Halliburton will you??/ I call the compnay "Hellorbuton".

[Anonymous]

Don't even get me started........................
Im already sick of Bush already as it is[:(!]!

[Anonymous]

i am not going to get into a politics debate, but if you think Clinton was any different you are sadly mistaken. All of them go after certain programs. Overall, all politicians care about is getting the money to get relected, so they don't really care about us, just corporations. BTW, Hailburton also got no bid contracts under Clinton in the Kosovo and Bosnia Wars. There is a reason for that, it is that they are the best company to do that kind of work.
Brad

[Anonymous]

But ohh no,We tax payers are the one's who alway's get shafted.

[Anonymous]

So, buy some shares...

Share the risk and rewards...

LC

[espeefoamer]

You can't just blame the Republicans.Some of Amtrak's biggest cuts were during the Carter and Clinton administrations[:(!].

[Anonymous]

The Airport Improvement Program for 2006 is $3B. The FAA is$13B this year and for 2006 1200 Air Traffic Controllers for a net increase of 595 to replace retirees is included.

What would be the cost of flying if the airlines had to be their own way?

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Just to fair, how about ending subsidies to the failing airline industry also, then let see how much fun doing business in this country is. I think you'll find that under the ending "corporate subsidies" in reality will be targeted at those subidies with the least influence in DC, do anyone seriously think Bush's biggest campain corporate contributors will see dollar one cut from their feeding trough? more likely this program will cut funding in one place , and increase it to the fat cat supporters. Big $$$ will always get thier share.

WORD brother!! I agree with you 100%. Ya know something I have to add to this. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see a peice of legislation going through congress that would cut funding to Halliburton will you??/ I call the compnay "Hellorbuton".

With John Snow as Tresury Secretary, you would think the railroads would get better treatment; however, with the treatment Snow gave CSX, I doubt the country could afford it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Just to fair, how about ending subsidies to the failing airline industry also, then let see how much fun doing business in this country is. I think you'll find that under the ending "corporate subsidies" in reality will be targeted at those subidies with the least influence in DC, do anyone seriously think Bush's biggest campain corporate contributors will see dollar one cut from their feeding trough? more likely this program will cut funding in one place , and increase it to the fat cat supporters. Big $$$ will always get thier share.

WORD brother!! I agree with you 100%. Ya know something I have to add to this. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see a peice of legislation going through congress that would cut funding to Halliburton will you??/ I call the compnay "Hellorbuton".

With John Snow as Tresury Secretary, you would think the railroads would get better treatment; however, with the treatment Snow gave CSX, I doubt the country could afford it.

LOL, yeah he gave them a "SNOW JOB"...

LC

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arnstg

The Airport Improvement Program for 2006 is $3B. The FAA is$13B this year and for 2006 1200 Air Traffic Controllers for a net increase of 595 to replace retirees is included.

What would be the cost of flying if the airlines had to be their own way?

Probably not that much. With over 600 million people flying last year, collecting an extra $1.60 per passenger would net an extra $1 billion dollars. Sure, it adds up but probably not to the point that business people stop flying and vacationers stay home. Subsidies are just a good way for politicians to get re-elected. At the end of the day they hurt the companies they are supposed t help. After September 11th, the EU did not allow subsidies to be given to the airlines unlike the US which opened the flood gates. A couple of airlines ended up going bankrupt but the rest surived and the European low cost airlines are growing constantly. I think if the US had let a couple of the airlines sink, the industry as a whole would be in a lot better shape now inspite of the short term pain it may have caused. Instead, airlines like United even used bankruptcy protection to offer stupidly low fares that the other carries then had to match which ended up weakening them as well. At the end of the day, I think subsidies make companies weaker not stronger because they don't have to be as innovative and creative to stay alive.

[Anonymous]

One of the hidden subsidies is infrastructure for almost every other mode of transportation is financed by governments. This means that trucks, buses, planes & barges do not have to raise capital to build their infrastructure like railroads do. Another is that their infrastructure is taken off the tax rolls. Every mile of new highway takes tax paying property off the books and you have to make up the difference. Railroads have to pay taxes on their infrastructure and if they improve it they pay more.

RH

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fado12c

One of the hidden subsidies is infrastructure for almost every other mode of transportation is financed by governments. This means that trucks, buses, planes & barges do not have to raise capital to build their infrastructure like railroads do. Another is that their infrastructure is taken off the tax rolls. Every mile of new highway takes tax paying property off the books and you have to make up the difference. Railroads have to pay taxes on their infrastructure and if they improve it they pay more.

RH

For the most part, the interstate infrastructure used by barges, trucks, and airlines is paid for via user fees. Users of the Columbia/Snake River waterway pay a 0.20 per gallon tax that goes into a waterways trust fund, but unfortunately other waterway systems in other parts of the country do not have such a user fee. Truckers pay 0.18 in federal fuel tax in addition to state fuel taxes and other fees, and for the most part they do pay their fair share of the interstate corridors. For secondary roads and urban infrastructure, there is some contribution from property taxes and other non-user fee funding.

It is true that railroads pay property tax on their ROW, but that is their choice when they opt to keep the owner-operator form. I have pointed out in other threads that one of the benefits of an open access system would be the elimination of the property tax assessments on ROW, but I have been told that such property taxes do not amount to all that much compared to the loss of pricing power that would occur if all captive rail shippers were "freed".

You also must remember that all costs acrued by transporters, whether railroads or trucks, are passed on to the consumer. It is interesting that when calculating break even costs of providing transporter services, both the ROW maintenance costs of railroads and the user fees paid by truckers is about 10% of the cost of the service.

[andrewjonathon]

There seems to be this logic on this forum that if users just had to pay for the full cost of flying or driving car they would all come running to get on trains. I would suggest that the demand for auto transportation and air travel to lesser extent is relatively inelastic. If the cost significantly increased the result would be 1) people would absorb the cost and keep travelling (this is basically what has happened as oil prices have soared in the last few years) 2) they would look to buy cars with better fuel consumption (as happened in Europe over the last few decades) or 3) they would travel less. I doubt that you would see large shift to travelling by train especially on long distances. Everyone always points to Europe as an example but I would suggest that Europe's use of trains has more to do with the fact that entire continent looks like the Northeast where trains are used alot here. Besides remember Europe is clogged with cars and planes as well.