Prohibit "First-Class" Subsidies on Amtrak Potential savings of $1.2 billion over ten years
Of interest, my "Critter', Rep Judy Biggert (R-IL13) voted in favor, i.e.unfavorably to passenger train interests.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is kind of a strange way of looking at the situation...ie. paying the $396 per sleeper that is the govt. subsidy. The concept is sort of like a medical co-pay.
If we did pay the $396, would that be added on to the cost of a sleeper that now exists, or would they reduce the cost of the sleeper? That would be nice but I don't think so. I don't like the idea, but if we are going to have an Amtak co-pay should it not apply to the coach seats, as well?
I would, even though meals are covered with the sleeper package, be glad to pay for all meals, on Amtrak, if they go back to freshly prepared food in an on-board kitchen.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several questions. Where did they arrive at this $396 dollar figure? Is that figure per day - per trip - per what? What is the subsidy rate per coach passenger? (Remember room rates are in addition to the basic passenger (coach) rate.)
If I make a cross country trip -- say Boston to Los Angeles ---- and travel first class How much is the subsidy if traveling Amtrak? How much is the subsidy if flying? How much is the subsidy if I drove?
I do not fly (last flight in 2000). I drive about 10 miles per week. Yet my tax dollars go to subsidize both forms of transportation. Where is the proposal to eliminate those subsidies and pass those costs on to the Airline passenger and Auto owner?
Posts: 460 | From: North Central CT | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll check and see if my critter voted for this. If so, I'll suggest he save us $370 billion over 10 years by eliminating the roadway subsidies, or $140 billion by eliminating the airways subsidies, or even saving us $60 billion by eliminating the waterway subsidies.
I'd be curious about his response. On edit: Ted Poe did vote for the $1.2 billion savings over 10 years, so I'll send him my letter and will get back to everyone when he responds (He does respond, unlike Queen Sheila, when I was in her district)
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just thinking... I priced out a trip from Austin to Chicago to Whitefish to LAX to Houston for next May for around $2000 for my wife & I. That trip includes 5 sleepers, at $400 subsidy per sleeper, that would add $2000 to my trip (double the price). There is something radically wrong with that subsidy cost. Someone screwed up the math.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately my "critter" voted yes on this. And I even sent a letter hoping he would support Amtrak funding with an actual letter response that he would.
Cutting subsidies doesn't seem like a full support of Amtrak to me.
And I wonder if this is even worth fighting for. How much could be saved by a yes vote on this? Probably not much in the overall big picture.
-------------------- Matt Visit gallery for photos of our train layouts Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If congress has a problem with how Amtrak is being managed, they should deal with Mr. Boardman.
The answer is certainly not to engage in micro managing. That can only have disastrous results as evidenced by the wasteful diner-lite experiment.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congress micro-managing anything will always be a disaster. Most of those politicians do not have the necessary experience to manage any business.
And I have written and sent my letter to Ted Poe.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I look at it, if you took the highway, airway, and waterway subsidies and put it into passenger rail. Which would be an additional 570 billion. We might be able to get more passengers. What they need to do is quit picking on the passenger trains. The first class is what attracts a lot of people to the train that can afford it. When you go from my area. You can leave from Florence (FLO at 11:45 PM, and get to DC at 7:46 the next morning. The airlines can't keep up with that. You sleep thru the night and your well rested in the morning, and the train pulls into downtown. Way before the airlines could get you there. If you can afford the sleeper it makes it a lot easier then taking a plane, due to arrival times. You agree. Specially now, the sleepers aren't much more expensive then a plane. In some markets. They are just looking for something to say no to. Party of no. I'm sorry if I offend anyone but that is my opinion.
Posts: 465 | From: elgin (s-line) | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something about this is fishy. According to the web site this item was voted on by the House using this process:
quote:Each week, the public votes on one of five wasteful spending items, then the House votes on the item chosen by the people. You told Washington where you stood, here is how your Representatives in Washington stood.
Since when does the public vote on which budget items will go to the House floor? I don't recall reading about that in my high-school civics class. Furthermore, it means four out of five wasteful spending items stay in the budget, and the fifth "winning" item goes to a House vote and may pass or not. This doesn't make any sense.
posted
Just Google Eric Cantor and check out a few articles listed and you will find all you need to know about Mr Cantor.
Posts: 460 | From: North Central CT | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any national-level politician who claims to worry about our deficit or spending issues, and does not have a serious suggestion for defense, MediCare or Social Security changes, is doing nothing but obfuscating the public.
Posts: 406 | From: La Grange, CA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: Something about this is fishy. According to the web site this item was voted on by the House using this process:
quote:Each week, the public votes on one of five wasteful spending items, then the House votes on the item chosen by the people. You told Washington where you stood, here is how your Representatives in Washington stood.
Since when does the public vote on which budget items will go to the House floor? I don't recall reading about that in my high-school civics class. Furthermore, it means four out of five wasteful spending items stay in the budget, and the fifth "winning" item goes to a House vote and may pass or not. This doesn't make any sense.
I agree. That isn't in class. If it was, we would be further in debt, as people want what they want. Good point.
Posts: 465 | From: elgin (s-line) | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In their arguments, Cantor et al talk about a low percentage of Amtrak travelers getting sleepers. But they don't seem to realize that's because there aren't enough sleepers! In fact, they don't really realize anything about Amtrak; they don't understand anything. They just want to cut it because Joe Biden is for it, or some other stupid gamesmanship reason like that. . . .
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the reasons that politicians, party notwithstanding, like having inexpensive ancillary programs around is that they have something, such as in this case the Amtrak LD System, to kick around, "demand a congressional investigations", and make wind about 'wasteful spending'. It is just one of the rules of the game.
Surprise upon surprise to hear this from me, but I highly doubt if any measurable savings arose from either the Carter or Mercer (Clinton) Cuts; safe assumption that nothing arose from the Bush administration "prunings".
All told the recently announced 130 car order, which even though not presently funded past the first of five installments (the first installment is being funded from Amtrak's increased revenues; remember Amtrak need not return their appropriation if their passenger revenues increase - they'd best find some use for it as if you don't use it you won't get it next year), will be placed in service. Even if Amtrak itself is no bastion of enthusiasm over the LD trains (if they REALLY wanted to restore Sunset East, it would be running today), they, along with the Class I industry, accept the existing level of LD's will continue to be around.
Expansion, beyond additional Sleeper lines on existing trains? that's a different story.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you Sojourner. They just want to cut it as democrats support it. Classic Party of no
Posts: 465 | From: elgin (s-line) | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right... No to socialism.. No to Big Government, No to plaintiff lawyers bleeding companies dry, No to the hatred towards capitalism. We desperately need the Party of No, until we kick out of our House and Senate the people hurting our Nation.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please take your distasteful diatribes somewhere else where you have worthy opponents. They have no place here whatsoever.
Posts: 326 | From: San Antonio Texas USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You left one big no, as I see it, out Mike. NO to all the big companies thst are bleeding middle America dry with their tax loops and concessions. Miami. I must say I agree with you. We shold be ablew to diagree or have different opinions without name calling or meanness.BTW I am an independent voter so I try to see both sides.
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
However, companies do not pay taxes nor do they receive loopholes or concessions. As an example... If you bought a gallon of milk this week, you paid $1.50 for the milk and $1.00 in taxes. The farmer rolled his taxes into the milk The transportation company rolled their taxes into the milk. The processor rolled their taxes into the milk. The transportation company rolled their taxes into the milk. The wholesaler rolled their taxes into the milk. The transportation company rolled their taxes into the milk. The retailer rolled their taxes into the milk. Then you paid for the milk and your share of their taxes.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by City of Miami: Please take your distasteful diatribes somewhere else where you have worthy opponents. They have no place here whatsoever.
Are you referring to Amtrak92?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Smith, you give an excellent example of how the Corporation Tax, which as I always told my clients when I had to listen to the "they ought to tax those rich corporations more' line, is a regressive tax - and in fact it is a regressive tax hidden so that John Q thinks it is a progressive tax on someone else.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the topic is now taxes, the Bush tax cuts on the richest people should be allowed to expire.
Why? Because the richest 1% of the population sucks up 23% of total household income, more than double their take of 10% in 1979. If the Bush tax cuts were to expire their take would be reduced to 20%, still double their share from 1979.
In the last 30 years, 90% of all income growth went to the richest 10% of the population.
Also in that time, CEO salaries went from being 30 times the average income of their employees to 300 times the average income.
posted
Mr Toy, you have fallen for the media "big lie". Bush did not cut taxes on the rich.
Before Bush's tax cuts, the rich were paying 84% of ALL income taxes. After Bush's tax cut, the rich were paying 86% of ALL income taxes.
Bush screwed the rich into paying another 2% of all income taxes. While this link is not the link I used to get my 2% figure (IRS website) it should be able to explain it. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff70.pdfPosts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Mr Norman. Feel free to use it. I have been using it for a decade or so...
You might want to change it to "rolled their taxes into the cost of the milk". That would not all fit on the same line, so I lopped off a part of my response to make it more readable.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't see much about Amtrak in this thread anymore, and the thread did veer pretty sharply, but I do have to comment that while the positions taken are polar opposites, I didn't see any name calling or meanness. As in all these discussions I've participated in (not on this forum), I'm always at some point reminded of Disreali's quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Posts: 406 | From: La Grange, CA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: If the topic is now taxes, the Bush tax cuts on the richest people should be allowed to expire.
Why? Because the richest 1% of the population sucks up 23% of total household income, more than double their take of 10% in 1979. If the Bush tax cuts were to expire their take would be reduced to 20%, still double their share from 1979.
In the last 30 years, 90% of all income growth went to the richest 10% of the population.
Also in that time, CEO salaries went from being 30 times the average income of their employees to 300 times the average income.
They can afford higher taxes.
I agree, the superentendent of schools in my area, gets paid an undisclosed amount of money. If you drive by his house you can tell it is a lot. 3 BMW's, and a mansion on a lake. While the schools are having to lay off teachers, and force everyone to pay to go to public school. So his income is high. I say tax him more for it.
Posts: 465 | From: elgin (s-line) | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: Right... No to socialism.. No to Big Government, No to plaintiff lawyers bleeding companies dry, No to the hatred towards capitalism. We desperately need the Party of No, until we kick out of our House and Senate the people hurting our Nation.
One overtly political post gives rise to another, Mike. Seems the "party of no" struck again, and was called out by one of my heroes on the House floor yesterday. This guy's got cojones the size of your state:
posted
Sure, Ocala... If you ignore the facts and let your emotions run wild, I can see where you might think he has some semblance of cojones. That illusion disappears just as soon as you start looking into the facts.
posted
Well, I'll continue out on this thin limb, and state that this bill was feel good politics from the get go - at its core, $7.4B for an unspecified group of people for unspecified and unproven issues. If it wasn't for that magical "9/11" tag, I'm surprised ANY Rep. worried about fiscal responsibility would support it. But this is my last post on this thread - back to Amtrak for me!
Posts: 406 | From: La Grange, CA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the Kristof article: "..the United States, which used to lead the world in the proportion of young people with college degrees, has dropped to 12th." Wow.
And in health care outcomes, life expectancy, infant mortality we are well past 25th. But our rail system is the envy of the world, right? Well, it kind of used to be in the 40's.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Twin Star, I would presume you are addressing "passenger rail", as distinct from "rail".
For the 98% of the business, we're the best in the world....for that other 2%?.....well.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting how my post was interpreted as "classic party of no" when that was not what I said; what I thought I said was that the attitude of each party is to go against the other party often for no reason other than gamesmanship.
However, I do think Republican record on Amtrak has become abysmal; most of the Republicans who supported it are now out of office (Trent Lott, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Gordon Smith, the ex-senator from Minnesota (name escapes me). And of course the current Secretary of Transportation.
posted
sojourner, you have changed the subject from federal government to State government, and according to the tenth amendment, NY can do that.
However, I do agree with you. It is not a government function to give our tax dollars to private corporations without a return on the money, such as services the state needs, or direct benefits to the citizens of each State.(Think - companies that build roads or companies that furnish goods and service to the government, like copy paper and computers)
Giving tax dollars to companies to "create jobs" is ridiculous. Where is our benefit from that expenditure? However, States do have the right to do that. It is up the the citizens of that State to stop that practice, if they do not agree with it.
And yes, Amtrak is a legitimate expenditure of tax dollars. There is a significant part of our society that will not fly and cannot drive long distances. Amtrak, and to a lesser degree Greyhound, provides a national transportation need.
And FYI, Kay Bailey Hutchison isn't out of office, yet...
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't know that I understand your point, Irishchieftan. But I have to agree with GBN. Our rail freight transportation is second to none. Just watch the conveyor belt of intermodal trains on the transcon or nose to tail coal trains coming out of Powder River. Apparently our financial community feels the same, just ask Mr. Buffet. And these are jobs that won't be outsourced and is an industry that requires lots of capital investment to maintain the railroad which helps our beleaguered manufacturing sector.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And keeps huge amounts of 18 wheelers off of our highways, cutting down on the traffic and maintenance.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't know that I understand your point, Irishchieftan
All of those trains are sending our money out of the country. I'd rather replace them all with varnish. I no more believe those numbers than I believe the numbers out of the government; all I see with those freight trains is our trade deficit climbing higher.
quote:keeps huge amounts of 18 wheelers off of our highways
Somehow I do not think so.
And also something tells me that it's 99 percent perception. Gemünden am Main sees a high number of electrified freights, something the US pioneered but gave up in spite of its higher efficiency than diesel-electric.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: Mr Toy, you have fallen for the media "big lie". Bush did not cut taxes on the rich.
Before Bush's tax cuts, the rich were paying 84% of ALL income taxes. After Bush's tax cut, the rich were paying 86% of ALL income taxes.
The "share" of total tax revenue revenue paid by the rich isn't really the issue. Bush gave everyone a tax cut, but the rich got a smaller tax cut, so their "share" of total tax payments increased even as their actual taxes decreased.
What really counts when measuring the tax burden is what percentage an individual's income is taxed. The rich folk as a whole didn't see their taxes increase 2% under Bush as you imply.
Anyway, those tax cuts certainly didn't bring us to long-term prosperity as predicted. Instead they forced us to finance two wars on Chinese loans, leading us into quite a financial pickle. Letting the tax cuts expire (as scheduled under Bush's plan) on those who can most easily afford it will help reduce the deficit, making it less tempting to do a hatchet job on Amtrak's budget.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
