includes:
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The "devil is in the details" but sounds like on the right track of course, not likely to pass the current House.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
This would actually be worthwhile, the kind of self-investment a serious country does. Unfortunately, it's just another of the distractions Obama is offering up these days to divert attention from his myriad domestic- and foreign-policy failures. He knows there's no money for it, and that Republicans (properly) will not agree to increase borrowing for discretionary spending.
So even though it is a worthwhile investment, because the president proposes it, it is (properly) rejected. Brilliant.
schlimm The "devil is in the details" but sounds like on the right track of course, not likely to pass the current House.
dakotafred This would actually be worthwhile, the kind of self-investment a serious country does. Unfortunately, it's just another of the distractions Obama is offering up these days to divert attention from his myriad domestic- and foreign-policy failures. He knows there's no money for it, and that Republicans (properly) will not agree to increase borrowing for discretionary spending.
Pretty well put! It's a good idea that doesn't stand a chance.
So, what should we do to help push things like this along?
I suggest this:
-put heat on government to fix the debt by tackling entitlements and tax reform. This would "allow" Republicans to spend on "things". There are exactly zero politicians who don't like posing in front of things or with shovels, taking all the credit... (just look at the recent "water" bill...)
-put heat on Amtrak to continue to become more efficient. They are the point man in this game and they don't have as good a reputation as they could have. They need to work on showing they are good stewards of the money they get.
schlimm So even though it is a worthwhile investment, because the president proposes it, it is (properly) rejected. Brilliant.
Pretty sure that 's not what he said. What I read was that it doesn't stand a chance because Republicans aren't going to increase the budget deficit for this reason and he thinks this is proper (I do, too.) The implication is that in order get increases in discretionary spending, there would have to be cuts or revenue increases elsewhere. That pretty much means entitlement reform and/or tax reform.
So, if we want more and better passenger rail, we might think about getting behind those pushing to get the Fed budget on a sustainable path. Otherwise, all we get to do is the "righteous indignation" thing.
The President has come up with a solid proposal for passenger rail improvements. This is not the time for us to wring our hands about politics and the budget. This is a time for us to get behind this plan and help sell it.
Yes, Amtrak needs to help sell it. Yes, NARP needs to help sell it. But, the greatest sales force is we the people. Don't use obsticles as an excuse. Use opportunity as a motivation.
The deficit has dropped each of the past 4 years and as a percentage of GNP is at the lowest level in years. The "debt crisis" was created by a number of forces, but not by Social Security or Medicare entitlements, which do not contribute one penny to the debt. So-called austerity programs have not worked, as can be seen with nations like the UK, whose economy is still in the tank. We should be investing in infrastructure (not the same as spending on agricultural subsidies, ethanol subsidies or defense, for example), which in private industry would be a capital expenditure, not an operating expense. Such wise appropriations boost the overall economy and provide for higher productivity through more efficiency. But for reasons political, one party refuses to do so, even though they voted for enormous unfunded and/or budget-busting measures when they controlled the WH for 20 years.
schlimmThe deficit has dropped each of the past 4 years and as a percentage of GNP is at the lowest level in years.
True. But, the current gap is still very high by historical standards. It was crazy high in 2008 and 2009.
schlimm The "debt crisis" was created by a number of forces, but not by Social Security or Medicare entitlements, which do not contribute one penny to the debt.
Not true. https://www.fixthedebt.org/why-it-matters
and
http://crfb.org/blogs/everything-you-need-know-about-budget-gimmicks-8-charts
(Both these groups are bi-partisan, BTW)
Don't confuse the budget deficit and national debt, either.
So, $19B a year for passenger rail? Worth fighting for? Not happening until we get the big things fixed.
South Texas The President has come up with a solid proposal for passenger rail improvements. This is not the time for us to wring our hands about politics and the budget. This is a time for us to get behind this plan and help sell it. Yes, Amtrak needs to help sell it. Yes, NARP needs to help sell it. But, the greatest sales force is we the people. Don't use obsticles as an excuse. Use opportunity as a motivation.
I have to say it...
Imagine how many baggage cars you can buy with $19B!
oltmannd Not true.
Not true.
Not false either. Quite complex with many assumptions, not simplistic.
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/11/28/social-security-and-the-national-debt/
In any case $19 bil. as an investment in infrastructure that improves the economy long-term through greater efficiencies (some of that $19 bil. on track helps the freight lines, too) is peanuts compared to other discretionary spending. Waiting for Congress to actually tackle other reforms, including taxes, means none of our serious problems will be resolved and we will decline economically.
Don:
You made two incompatible statements:
schlimm Don: You made two incompatible statements: "$19 billion in dedicated funding for rail programs. The proposal includes nearly $5 billion annually for passenger rail programs with a focus on improving the connections between key regional city pairs and high traffic corridors. per Trains News Wire today. $5B a year for corridor development ain't chump change." and later: "$19 billion per year for passenger rail" Which one is currently "operative" as they used to say in DC?
The total for passenger rail is $19B a year. Of that, $5B is for earmarked for corridor development.
It's not clear, but I suppose the other $14B is good state of repair for the NEC plus commuter rail work.
schlimm oltmannd Not true. Not false either. Quite complex with many assumptions, not simplistic. http://baselinescenario.com/2012/11/28/social-security-and-the-national-debt/ In any case $19 bil. as an investment in infrastructure that improves the economy long-term through greater efficiencies (some of that $19 bil. on track helps the freight lines, too) is peanuts compared to other discretionary spending. Waiting for Congress to actually tackle other reforms, including taxes, means none of our serious problems will be resolved and we will decline economically.
oltmanndEconomic decline? You should read "Balance: The Economics of Great Powers from Ancient Rome to Modern America" by Hubbard and Kane. Fascinating book.
And, for those who don't have the book, a fascinating Web site.
A good companion would be Paul Kennedy (1987). “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000.”
oltmannd The total for passenger rail is $19B a year. Of that, $5B is for earmarked for corridor development. It's not clear, but I suppose the other $14B is good state of repair for the NEC plus commuter rail work.
Does "corridor" refer only to the NEC or does it cover other corridors? I would think the plan would be dead in the water if it only covered the NEC.
-Erik
nonsense.
gregory hinton nonsense.
Nonsense, what?
Nonsense that it doesn't cover multiple corridors? Nonsense that if it only involves the NEC it's not going to be popular?
To paraphrase what Cliff Stoll was asked at his orals, 'could you be a little more specific?'
The FY 2015 proposed budget for DOT:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/transportation.pdf
* Implementing a new four-year, $10 billion freight program designed to eliminate existing freight transportation bottlenecks and improve the efficiency of moving goods in support of the President’s National Export Initiative; and
* Increasing funding for transit and passenger rail programs from $12.3 billion to $22.3 billion in 2015, expanding transit capital investment grants, significantly improving existing and new intercity passenger rail service, and strengthening the economic competitiveness of the Nation’s freight rail system.
* $19 billion over the next four years to fund the development of high performance rail and other passenger rail programs as part of part of an integrated national transportation strategy.
schlimm A good companion would be Paul Kennedy (1987). “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000.”
Hubbard and Kane reference this book quite a bit, and then go beyond.
Overmod gregory hinton nonsense. Nonsense, what? Nonsense that it doesn't cover multiple corridors? Nonsense that if it only involves the NEC it's not going to be popular? To paraphrase what Cliff Stoll was asked at his orals, 'could you be a little more specific?'
A society matron comes up to the manager of a construction site to complain, "Sir, the most foul language I have ever heard was uttered by your workers, and I never felt so violated." "OK, ma'am, I'll talk to my people and 'take care" of this."
Boss goes over to the guilty parties and says, "OK, what happened here and what is with all of that swearing -- we are out in public on this job site."
The explanation comes back, "It was like this, boss. Pat was workin' the saw to cut these forms to length, and I was holdin' for 'im. The saw slips and I got cut so I sez, "Heavens to Betsy, Patrick! Could you not endeavor to exercise more care guiding the saw on the next board?"
The terse response "nonsense", I believe, was in saying nonsense to the belief that an NEC-only plan would not be accepted.
But could we have a little more civility here than to tersely dismiss another Forum participants opinions with remarks like "nonsense" or "rubbish" or vulgar words? "Heavens to Betsy, Erik! Could you contruct an improved argument to support your reasoning that an NEC-only rail improvement plan would not receive legislative approval?"
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic Overmod gregory hinton nonsense. Nonsense, what? Nonsense that it doesn't cover multiple corridors? Nonsense that if it only involves the NEC it's not going to be popular? To paraphrase what Cliff Stoll was asked at his orals, 'could you be a little more specific?' The terse response "nonsense", I believe, was in saying nonsense to the belief that an NEC-only plan would not be accepted.
Perhaps better if he had posted the actual budget message [which see above] , which seems to show money for areas beyond the NEC.
I don't see how either Social Security or Medicare have an impact on Amtrak, Don. Social Security and Medicare A (the largest part by far of Medicare) are funded by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and really should not be considered as part of the Federal budget as all.
I'm not sure of where Amtrak's funding comes from, whether it is part of general revenues or the Federal excise tax on motor fuels. But it has little to do with Social Security or Medicare.
I suspect that many or most who ride long distance trains get Social Security and that program helps them to afford to ride Amtrak trains.
John
My comment about funding for the NEC versus other corridors was in response to posts regarding LD trains, saying something to the effect of "don't bother with anything outside of the NEC". To be fair, the statements were probably less draconian than I'm making them out to be. OTOH, the conversation early in this thread did seem to be focused heavily on the NEC.
Another part is the relative lack of funding on the LOSSAN corridor, significant portions of which are still single tracked and top speed of 90 MPH. The AMTK station closest to me has 400,000 Amtrak passengers boarding or alighting per year and is in predominantly single track territory. Keep in mind that Amtrak shares this line with the Coaster, and having Amtrak waiting for Coaster or vice versa is a very common occurrence.
Considering that Texas is #2 in population and Florida is about to become #3, it would make sense to be planning for corridors in those states as well.
Politics will play a role as well, any proposal will have to pass the House, where the majority party does not see eye to eye with the White House, so the Presidents proposal may end up getting significantly changed before it will pass.
- Erik
John WR I don't see how either Social Security or Medicare have an impact on Amtrak, Don. Social Security and Medicare A (the largest part by far of Medicare) are funded by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and really should not be considered as part of the Federal budget as all. I'm not sure of where Amtrak's funding comes from, whether it is part of general revenues or the Federal excise tax on motor fuels. But it has little to do with Social Security or Medicare. I suspect that many or most who ride long distance trains get Social Security and that program helps them to afford to ride Amtrak trains. John
Have you not heard of the Federal deficit? Does it really matter what pocket in Uncle Sam's suit he keeps his money?
FWIW, Uncle Sam has been "borrowing" money from his "retirement" pocket to fund his "weekly food" spending. He's also been borrowing money from his buddies to buy gas for his car.
erikem My comment about funding for the NEC versus other corridors was in response to posts regarding LD trains, saying something to the effect of "don't bother with anything outside of the NEC". To be fair, the statements were probably less draconian than I'm making them out to be. OTOH, the conversation early in this thread did seem to be focused heavily on the NEC. Another part is the relative lack of funding on the LOSSAN corridor, significant portions of which are still single tracked and top speed of 90 MPH. The AMTK station closest to me has 400,000 Amtrak passengers boarding or alighting per year and is in predominantly single track territory. Keep in mind that Amtrak shares this line with the Coaster, and having Amtrak waiting for Coaster or vice versa is a very common occurrence. Considering that Texas is #2 in population and Florida is about to become #3, it would make sense to be planning for corridors in those states as well. Politics will play a role as well, any proposal will have to pass the House, where the majority party does not see eye to eye with the White House, so the Presidents proposal may end up getting significantly changed before it will pass. - Erik
I cannot agree that Texas should necessarily fund the creation or extension of passenger train routes in our part of the country. What happened to the rule that routes over 750 miles in length would be at Federal expense? What happened to the concept of a "national" network? Three times a week to the nation's fourth largest city makes a laughing stock of this idea.
There is more to the United States than the Northeast corridor.
All proposed routes in Texas are inhierently over 750 miles in length. Chicago to Laredo. New Orleans to Los Angeles. Houston to Fort Worth, Abilene, Lubbock, Amarillo, and Denver.
Amtrak and the Congress need to live up to the responsibility created in 1971.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.