Amtrak: Democracy vs. "The Market"

[unhappycamper]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/52405/amtrak-democracy-vs-the-market

Amtrak: Democracy vs. "The Market"
by Dave Johnson | October 30, 2013 - 9:06am

Amtrak doesn’t “make money” so Republicans want to cut back on service to rural areas. This is America’s ideological tension: democracy serves We the People, plutocracy and markets serve the people who have money.

Of course you read Progressive Breakfast every morning to get the top news items of interest to progressives, but you might have missed this story Monday: Without federal aid, Amtrak could leave rural areas behind. The article discusses the importance of Amtrak in isolated areas,

~snip~

But Republicans say the country “can’t afford” to serve isolated, rural areas. This, of course, after decades of tax cut after tax cut for the wealthy and corporations, while doubling military spending under Reagan and then doubling it again under ‘W’ Bush. (They also say we “can’t afford” light rail in cities to help people get to work, or high-speed rail between cities to help people and goods move around.) From the story,

~snip~

It is interesting to read the comments this article has received at the various sites it is published. It is not getting the usual mass of nasty, insulting, anti-government comments from the right that you expect to see following an article like this. (At least not yet). At The Kansas City Star, for example, Gregory Hinton says, “in forty years Amtrak has lost money that the military gets in 20 days.” At the Miami Herald Clifford Timecruncher Kuhl writes, “I have to wonder how much the “indirect” subsidy is for airport costs and the air traffic control system and how it would affect the cost of an airline ticket were fliers required to pay the entire cost of air service?” At McClatchy DC Prentis Brandon notes, “The government could cover Amtrak route losses for 40 years ($600 million/year) with what they just wasted with a 16 day shutdown.” At the Witchita Eagle Tax Wayne writes, “Maybe the republicans would be willing to take a few bucks out of the farmer welfare program, (you know, the one where the republicans pay the farmers NOT to grow anything) and help Amtrak out.”

[JoePhilly]

1. Yet folks in rural areas predominantly vote GOP, go figure.

[gopiscrap]

2. yup, but all mostly have cars also!

[JoePhilly]

3. They wouldn't get cell phone coverage or cable TV either.

The "free market" would not support it.

Not enough subscribers in those areas to cover the cost of the associated infrastructure. Those have also been subsidized by government regulations.

[gopiscrap]

4. agree with you

the problem with trains is, the oil companies have done their damnedest to block any form of public transit, plus because the high majority of rural folks have cars there isn't the clamoring for trains. The problem with the tv, cable argument is that you have to have folks think about it, but many are either too self absorbed or dumb to figure it out.

[JayhawkSD]

5. A couple of points, from someone who loves trains

First is that there would not be any passenger trains running today ig government subsidy were not supporting them. They had become unprofitable for railroad companies to operate and were being discontinued. Amtrak was formed by the government to keep them running, and by the nature of the beast they must operate at a loss. The public is objecting to the federal deficit, so government says it needs to look at where these trains are most needed, which they rather properly assume to be the routes most heavily traveled.

The fewer people who use the rural routes may need them rather badly, but that doesn't mean that the people who ride trains in greater numbers don't need them badly as well. The trains that carry great numbers of people are not merely some sort of idle conveniences, and Amtrak needs to put its resources where it serves the greatest number of people it can. At what point do you decide a route cannot be supported any longer? Do you have to wait until the trains are entirely empty?

I will probably be accused of spouting "a wonderful bit of Tea Bag Sucker horseshit," and told that "Any rational person would not utter all the unsupported bullshit you have been repeating from the GOP Bullshit mill," as happened when I suggested that I was not entirely delighted with the ACA, but I am not easily intimidated. I will always say what I think, and I never respond to that kind of language.