Get on the phone guys...now is the time to call your Senator

warren1949 wrote:Having started three manufacturing companies from scratch, I have, at the very least, some expertise regarding the concept of "shovel ready" or "wrench ready" projects. Long before I ever started the actual manufacturing of my products, I hired staff. I needed planners, purchasing agents, marketing personnel, etc. All of those people needed to contact suppliers and place orders for immediate needs (equipment, supplies). We had to hire contractors to make leasehold improvements in the buildings that we leased (and of course, they had to buy supplies, secure equipment, construct drawings, get permits, etc.). In two situations, we had to redo the sewer hookups between the buildings and the street. I could go on.

What I am saying is that even if the final product is one year, two years, even three or more years into the future, people go to work in the meantime. It is a gradual process, but one that often can be speeded up with a little extra cash in hand. If anyone has the notion that the only legitimate projects are those that put all of the necessary people to work immediately, you are going to be disappointed.

Just a quick comment about the concept of lower taxes to spur investment. While that is a debatable theory, I am of the opinion that, even if it does work that way, the process takes even more time (my personal opinion is that if someone actually invests their income, they deserve the tax break...if they don't, that's a subject for someplace else).

As far as I am concerned, there are good, workable rail projects waiting to happen, from equipment rebuilds to new tracks (sidings, new tracks on existing rights of way, new rights of way), new signals, new systems, etc. When it comes to passenger rail service, there is little question that the US is on the same level as some third world countries when it comes to providing access to rail travel. Whose flag is on the moon?

You indeed make good points Mr. Warren; engineering work for any kind of infrastructure project creates well-paying jobs and hence economic activity. You have also pointed out that not everyone seeking employment today has bodies capable of construction work; but many have minds that enable one to be a productive member of the work force.

But as I noted, VISIBILIY is much of the equation - and seeing people at work, hopefully within months of enactment, breeds confidence. And after all, what is this whole economic mess all about? a crisis of confidence.

Finally, allow me to note that there is one Federal agency that surely concurs with Mr. Warren's thoughts - and that is the Department of the Army (maybe, but I don't think so, the Navy and Air Force as well). It has been reported that as the Recession/Depression has widened, the Army is meeting their recruitment goals - and with less recruits needing "morals waivers'. A "surge" in available construction jobs will make inroads into that pool of young, adventursome, 'macho', men and women who are attracted to what military service can offer, be such for a "hitch" or as a career.

After reviewing coverage of the Stimulus legislation in Today's New York Times (from the "table with a view' BTW; #381(7) P-42 and four cars), it appears that "cutting Amtrak' is no longer the top, or for that matter very high, prioirty of the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/us/po ... mulus.html

Brief passage:

• Lawmakers said that by poring over the 736-page bill they had excised about $110 billion, bringing the total cost to about $780 billion — $40 billion less than the stimulus bill approved by the House last week. Because of consumer tax breaks and spending for health research that had been added in the Senate, the new total for the measure could be about $820 billion. But even the senators behind the compromise were uncertain of the number.
  
  In addition to the large cut in state aid, the Senate agreement would cut nearly $20 billion proposed for school construction; $8 billion to refurbish federal buildings and make them more energy efficient; $1 billion for the early childhood program Head Start; and $2 billion from a plan to expand broadband data networks in rural and underserved areas.

Further, in Thursday's Times, Amtrak got a "boost" on the editorial page; maybe the Senators took heart;

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06fri1.html

Brief passage:

• In the Senate, Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, spent the day working with Republicans to dangerously strip down the Senate’s version of the economic measure. What noxious programs were they so eager to dump? Money for the Amtrak passenger rail system, the shortchanging of which has been a damaging annual ritual that has put America decades behind most of the world.

It appears Amtrak funding has survived:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/ ... index.html

In the Senate, Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, spent the day working with Republicans to dangerously strip down the Senate’s version of the economic measure. What noxious programs were they so eager to dump? Money for the Amtrak passenger rail system, the shortchanging of which has been a damaging annual ritual that has put America decades behind most of the world.

While I personally can understand the difficulty of portraying any rail passenger service as socially beneficial, let alone profitable in an economic sense, the tone of the Times story seems condescending. In most of the red states, and even in large portions of "red enclaves" within the blue, traditional rail passenger service remains a poor fit, and a costly one. And the portrayal of subsidized rail service in faux-enlightened European societies where private vehicle ownership is heavily taxed, as "progress" in the eyes of those ensconced within the Beltway or on Manhattan merely intensifies the perception of a lecture from the self-designated elite.

I do believe that the area suitable for rail service is expanding, and that natural economic forces will concentrate more of the population within those areas; but fuel-related pressures work a hardship on the rural population as well, and they simply are not concentrated in a pattern that justifies much passenger rail. Some sort of "fallback" system, like vanpools, might be proposed, but many states already have somethig like this for medical needs of the elderly, etc. And there's always the issue of separating the justifiable measures from the pork.

offtopic , but what is a consumer tax break ???

Mr. Benton, that would be "tax cuts" directed towards Middle Class households where the propensity to consume (spend) would be greater than with the Bush administration's "tax cuts" that primarily benefitted upper income taxpayers. Since an upper income taxpayer's desires for consumer goods has already been satisfied the "stimulus" as perceived by the Bush administration was saving (investment).

Chafford1 wrote:It appears Amtrak funding has survived:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/ ... index.html

To be honest, I'm not surprised whatsoever. Amtrak funding - of some kind - pretty much always pulls through.

Chessie GM50 wrote: To be honest, I'm not surprised whatsoever. Amtrak funding - of some kind - pretty much always pulls through.

... 'some kind' being the operative phrase.

I propose that we just go ahead and call this one the 'Miracle on the Potomac' in our Railroad.net community. I'm going to cite the 'Downeaster Effect' from Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and the 'Biden Quotient' of the Vice-President for being the two most important reasons this funding came through.

I am nothing short of utterly stunned that Amtrak's funding wasn't either shredded to pieces or cut altogether.

If this is not evidence of the powerful political pull that Amtrak has with the constituency in Maine for Sen. Collins and the desire of the Vice-President to see Amtrak succeed and grow then I simply do not know what is.

According to the cnn.com article cited in the previous posts Amtrak's funding survived fully intact over the following constituencies:

Education (including youth nutrition and preschool)
Energy/Environment
The Federal Government (Fleet Vehicles, Office Construction & Renovation)
Homeland Security (Coast Guard in particular)
Agriculture
Housing and Urban Development
Respective State Budgets

Absolutely Unbelievable!

If this is a sign of things to come then Amtrak will, at a minimum, be able to return to a state of good repair in equipment and infrastructure terms in a short period of time. This will make a huge dent in the equipment shortages. If $800 Million doesn't solve the worst of it nothing will.

A few thoughts come to mind as i review Mr. O'Keefe's material immediately above..

There is no question whatever that there will be a continuing need for intercity Corridor and regional commuter rail passenger service through the 21st Century; that is why the additional appropriation to Amtrak for infrastructure projects, as distinct from meeting the payroll and paying the light bill @ 60Mass, has survived with little more than pruning.

While I wholly respect Mr. Warren's thoughts set forth above that projects such as acquiring new railcars will provide stimulus in that the contractors would be hiring Mechanical Engineers and acquiring new computer equipment (whatever happened to drafting boards and slide rules from my day?) from the "get go', so much of our economic recovery, at least in the early stages, will represent 'guerilla theatre'. That you and I are delayed by highway or, particularly in the Northeast, on a train for track or bridge construction and we see young men and women, who might otherwise have no recourse other than "join the Army (not a bad option in my book lest this USAF veteran notes)', out working at a good paying job (as distinct from sweeping up the parking lot @ Mickey D) and making the down payment on a new Ford F-150 (Benny and Lex are simply not part of that culture) will just in itself instill confidence - and the loss of confidence is what got us in this mess.

Now to continue; the programs that got whacked cited by Mr. O'Keefe, as well as my previous cite of "Arts and aardvarks' , all have their place to be considered for funding. That is within "spending bills' that often have a way of being titled Omnibus (I guess to allow Prince Rupert's vassals at The Journal to editorialize with quips such as "Congress again gets on the Bus"). Through this legislation, the Coast Guard will get their icebreaker (built in a US shipyard - Sen Collins (R-ME) surely has one in mind as does Sen. Cochran (R-MS) - even if such is not the same one), the aardvarks will have their 'birds and bees" studied, and Amtrak will get its funding to pay the 60 Mass light bill.

Finally, and may i ask for some leeway to "go political", what I believe took place is that the line between "stimulus" and spending got blurred - and President Obama's own party in Congress proceeded to "pork up" the Bill and divert from the intent of stimulus. This resulted in the clear message the House Republicans sent out of 'we can't defeat you with votes, but we can defeat you in your quest for bi-partisanship, Mr. President" and the Senate's, where 58 Democratic votes is not 60, filibustering of the measure until some measure of compromise has been reached, which apparently now is the case. Now where I think President Obama can be criticized is that he failed to summon Sen Reid and Rep Pelosi to the Oval Office, sit them down, and say "Mr. Majority Leader and Madam Speaker, this legislation is about stimulus or what we can do to get people working and consuming again - and fast. Spending comes later; the Agencies (Amtrak one of such) will just chug along under their continuing resolutions for a while. Don't, and I mean don't, let your people pork it up; you will just be giving the other guys an excuse to have a field day".'

That would have "taken guts', but I think it was what was necessary - and I doubt if anything such occurred.

David Benton wrote:offtopic , but what is a consumer tax break ???

In the Stimulus Bill there are several proposals to cut taxes:
1) Cut the bottom tax rate to 5% from 10%
2) Cut the next tier to 10% from 15%. Compare with 2008 tax tables to see income brackets for the 10%-15% rates.
3) $500 per taxpayer credit with income limits
4) $1500 tax credit if you buy a home this year, with income limits
5) Changes to income limits for AMT & technical stuff

There are other proposals to cut corporate tax rates or other items. All these proposals put some money back into consumer's pockets. (It would be better to call the consumer a citizen. It's YOUR money, not the Governments. YOU should decide where to spend it!)

This debate is just getting started. After the Stimulus Bill, work must begin on the 2009 Budget, that begins in October. AFAIK, the 2008 budget has yet to be finished. We will see how much $$ Amtrak gets to spend.

One area where all of the politicians, from the tax cutters to the spenders, fall woefully short is being honest about the time frame of any solution. The very best solution, the one that gets off the ground the quickest, is going to take some time. My personal opinion is that we have to look at a reasonable combination of both spending and tax cutting. Spending is going to be quicker, but it is not immediate. The effect of cutting taxes, then the money "reinvested" in some immediate fashion (which I would define as less than 12 months) or reinvested by starting, or otherwise promoting, new business (a process that is almost assuredly longer than 12 months), is going to take most of a president's first term in office. I wish they would be more honest about it. Yes, they are telling us the truth, but the message is vague at best. The spending proposed to extend safety nets like unemployment benefits, etc. is, in reality a message that the proposals of the "stimulus" are going to take time, so money is needed to help people through that time period. Why can't they just say it that way?

Not to get too far off topic, but I am all for tax breaks for those who reinvest their profits. However, if they do not reinvest, I am not so sympathetic.

What I would like to see, before a whole bunch of money is tossed down a hole, is a real transportation policy that shows us where rail fits in the overall picture.

GWoodle wrote:This debate is just getting started. After the Stimulus Bill, work must begin on the 2009 Budget, that begins in October. AFAIK, the 2008 budget has yet to be finished. We will see how much $$ Amtrak gets to spend.

We are in FY09 now, and yes, many Departments are on Continuing Resolutions still. Equally, FY10 budget cycle is about to begin.

As far as Amtrak goes, I'm scratching my head why it's in the stimulus. They have an authorization, let's give them an appropriation and they can get on with some things... especially since Amtraks annual authorization grew more than a bit.