posted
Now that Sen. Jeffords has become independent, the Democrat's now have control of powerful parts of the Senate.
Republicans have never been friendly to Amtrak, and Sen. Hollings, replacing McCain, has been called by Warrington, "An extraordinary supporter of passenger rail and of Amtrak."
We can hope that McCain has less "power of criticism," and that the new Democratic West will help Amtrak succeed.
[This message has been edited by Eric (edited 05-24-2001).]
Posts: 553 | From: Flagstaff, AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that McCain losing his chairmanship over the committee that oversees Amtrak is a good thing, because McCain is actively anti-Amtrak. But I don't think it's fair to say that "Republicans have never been friendly to Amtrak."
*For many in Congress, Dem. or Rep., it's not an issue they feel strongly about one way or the other. They aren't Amtrak fans, but they aren't opponents like McCain either. If the right arguments are made to them, they might come out in favor of Amtrak. On the other hand, if the anti-Amtrakers argue strongly to them, they might be swayed the other way. THIS UNCOMMITTED MIDDLE IS THEREFORE CRUCIAL.
*Many in Congress, D or R, vote on Amtrak issues on the basis of whether Amtrak goes through their state or district. Hence GOP senators like Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Trent Lott (MS).
*There are plenty of GOP senators sponsoring the High-Speed Rail Investment Act -- including super-reactionary Jesse Helms -- while there are Democrats who don't back the bill even where their state is slated to receive money under it -- neither Dem. senator from Missouri is a sponsor, though that state is a major part of the Midwest corridor plan.
Posts: 22 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historically, AMTRAK has not fared well with the Democrats. It was during the Carter administration, when both houses were Democratic, that AMTRAK's route miles were cut be about 50%. And the recent decline in AMTRAK ocurred while Clinton was in the White House. Sometimes he had Democratic majorities in the houses of Congress, and sometimes he didn't.
posted
I believe it makes sense for Amtrak to be as non-partisan as possible. While hostile attacks seemed to be more frequent under Republican administrations (especially the Reagan years), the Democrats do not provide a safe haven. Amtrak needs to justify itself as a valuable transportation option that is a wise use of taxpayer funds.
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My main concern is that people see Amtrak in a positive light and not beholden to one party. I agree with your earlier statement that a Democrat-controlled Senate could help rail. I don't want Amtrak to be a "hot button" issue like gun control, etc. where the main parties are far apart on ideas.
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm very pleased with these developpments, politically, I must state the following opinions. While I prefer democrats to republicans, I think that Amtrak is not a partisan issue.
Normally the Dems are more friendly to social programs, but have they EVER taken the lead in FULLY funding Amtrak? Clinton had 8 years running the show, and instead of setting forth a rail-agenda, Amtrak limped along as it always did. During Clinton's term, that law was passed forcing Amtrak to become self-sufficient by 2003!! Where were the Dems then?
I don't generally vote republican, but I really can't bash them on this issue! They havent tried to kill Amtrak, and the Dems haven't tried to save it either.
Personally, I favor a balance of power. It keeps the dems from being too liberal, the GOP from being too conservative. Checks and balances. Hopefully this does benefit Amtrak.... i guess we'll soon see!
Posts: 140 | From: Albany, NY | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
