Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="MidlandMike"] [quote user="Sam1"] Amtrak is a government sponsored, commercial enterprise.  Its commercial competitors include intercity bus companies and commercial airlines.  It also offers an alternative transportation option to motorists, although few of them appear to take advantage of it. National parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, libraries, etc. are a different category.  They are not commercial entities, and they are not expected to cover their costs directly from the users. Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions.  They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions.  How many of those who say they are in favor of passenger trains understand how they are financed?  If they did, would their responses be the same or would they change?  If they understand the impact of continuing deficits on the national debt, would they still favor running deficits to support intercity passenger rail? As of today the national debt of the United States, including inter-government debt, is $17.6 trillion. Throw in state and local debt and the debt burden jumps to $20.1 trillion.  It is approximately 120 per cent of GDP, which is one measure of the seriousness of the debt burden.  How did we get here? Not because of Amtrak's deficits, although it is a factor. In part it is because every interest group in the U.S., i.e. public television, public radio, the arts, subsidized crop insurance, Tricare, etc. believes the federal government should support an activity that they are not willing to cover. Clearly, there are activities that the government must perform irrespective of the cost.  But how many and how widely is a legitimate debate. Amtrak is part of the problem.  It needs to be part of the solution.  Eliminating the long distance trains would be a meaningful albeit small contribution to the solution.   I don't believe the government should be in the passenger rail business, anymore than I believe it should be operating an intercity bus line, airline, or cruise line.  These activities are best performed by private enterprise.[/quote] I don't see any point in arguing about the national debt here, as the political process can't decide on how to handle it, and even economist debate whether or not it is out of line as compared to the total economy. [/quote] You could do one thing to help the politicians deal with the national debt.  Take pen in hand and write to your representative and senators.  Tell them, as I do every six months, that you don't want any more money wasted on Amtrak's long distance passenger trains. I also tell them that passenger trains make sense in relatively short,  high density corridors, where the cost to expand the airways and highways is prohibitive, and the federal government should facility the enhancement of the existing corridors and develop new ones where they make sense.  My uncle was an economics professor at Penn State.  As he said on more than one occasion, put two economists in a room and lock the door. In half an hour you will get three opinions whatever economics subject is up for discussion. The Congressional Budget Office recently issued a report saying that the national debt is a serious issue and is likely to become more so unless the country develops a realistic plan to deal with it. At the current rates of growth, according to the CBO, the public debt could reach 100 per cent of GDP by 2039.  Check it out at CBO.gov.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag