electricron wrote:
When was support for Amtrak ever partisan?
Without getting to ancient history (Nixon LOL), Amtrak has enjoyed support from leading Republican governors like Schwarzenegger in California, Pataki in New York (Boardman worked for him before going to D.C.), Thompson in Wisconsin, McConnell in Virginia, Snyder in Michigan. Former Senators Trent Lott of Mississippi and Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas were solid supporters of Amtrak.
South Dakota Senator John Thune heads the Transportation subcommittee and helped to push the FAST Act thru. The current governor of Mississippi, Bob Bryant, and Senator Roger Wicker of Miss, have been the leading advocates for restoring service along the Gulf Coast, conspicuously riding the "test train" earlier this year.
In the House, Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania has been a key supporter. And Tom Latham of Iowa spoke in Amtrak's defense when one of the crazies moved to chop the subsidy by 10%. While most House Repubs voted for the drastic cut, 71 (about a third of them) voted in favor of Amtrak, which added to the Democratic votes saved the system's funding.
Sadly, but inescapably, Amtrak has become a partisan issue today because only one party has a majority of its House members, for example, ready to chop 10% of Amtrak's annual funding. Those haters and crazies have made Amtrak a partisan issue, despite other Repub support.
electricron wrote:
Continuous proposals for privatization lies over the financial concerns of the ever deteriorating rail infrastructure, including the NEC. The idea that the USDOT will ever find a hundred to two hundred billion dollars for rebuilding the NEC over the next ten years is ludicrous, when we consider the entire USDOT annual budget for highways, seaways, railways, and airways is less than a hundred billion dollars.
There's plenty of money. Over the past 6 years or more the federal deficit has been smaller every year. Meanwhile the economy has been growing modestly but regularly. So the deficit as a share of the economy (GDP) has been shrinking, while over this country's 200-year history it has usually flowed forward. Getting back to normal levels of borrowing could be a very healthy thing for a shrunken economy.