What would McCain as President mean for Amtrak?

Without turning this into a heated political debate and maybe I could suggest just focusing on McCain and not the other candidates, I would really like to hear from fellow forumers of their opinion on what McCain as president would mean for Amtrak. Afterall we all know that McCain is very outspoken against Amtrak.

Will we continue to see the typical scenario of the last 35 years where despite many US president's opposition to Amtrak, Amtrak is too popular to kill and is preserved by Congress by being put on life-support with absolute minimal funding, cutbacks on maintenence and no improvements?

Or would a 'President McCain' pose a real threat to Amtrak’s very existence moreso than we have seen in the past?

Nothing, Amtrak is funded and overseen by Congress. The next president will have no desire to go there.

The next President may however decide that America needs a transportation policy. Talk about the future of passenger rail my be heard coming from the White House.

While Sen. McCain could hardly be about to campaign as "the Passenger Rail President", I think there can be comfort that the $1.4B or thereabouts that Amtrak is appropriated is buried deep within a "Spending Bill' that if any President would think not once, but twice, about vetoing.

Prediction: while there may be words to the effect from a possible McCain administration about the "waste of Amtrak", the system, including the LD's, will remain substantially intact, the Acelas will roll on enjoying their commercial success and I'll even lay the gentleman's bet that a replacement Amfleet order (hardly for 492 but likely about 200 cars) will be made regardless of who is in the White House come Jan 20 next.

President McCain will accept that there are other wars to fight and Amtrak is simply not high enough on the radar screen to give it much concern. There will be no "shut 'er down' bluster to the effect that occurred during the first Reagan term.

I agree with Mr. Norman that a McCain presidency probably won't in itself make much difference to Amtrak one way or the other. As a Republican president dealing with a Congress that is likely to remain controlled by the Democrats, he's going have much bigger battles to fight, especially as regards the country's rapidly deflating economic bubble, Iraq, the Federal debt, health care, and Social Security. Amtrak might get a throwaway line in a speech now and then, but not much more.

I do not think McCain would be a "friend" of Amtrak. He has gone on
record as opposed to Amtrak in a number of ways from time to time.
If he is elected I do not see anything really good for Amtrak, probably
more of what we have had for the past few years and maybe even worse
than that.
Noel Weaver

The Amtrak bill did pass the Senate with a super majority (Veto Proof) so Amtrak would probally survive.

McCain will probally attack it though, and we don't have David Gunn to shut him up.

I think that if McCain wins the GOP nomination, the Democrats will be forced to choose a v.p. candidate from the West, possibly Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a strong supporter of railroads. Without a western candidate on the Dem's ticket McCain might possibly sweep the Rocky Mountain states and have a (long)shot at the White House. President McCain, however, wouldn't have much of a power base in Congress.

You asked
"[If McCain becomes President] Will we continue to see the typical scenario of the last 35 years where despite many US president's opposition to Amtrak, Amtrak is too popular to kill and is preserved by Congress by being put on life-support with absolute minimal funding, cutbacks on maintenence and no improvements?"

Yes.

Simple answer there.

On the other hand, I really hope Bill Richardson gets appointed as VP or (better) Secretary of Transportation in the next administration. That would mean really good things for rail all 'round.

Here are some sample quotes from Sen. McCain:

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, (R) Arizona: This has got to be called the great train robbery. It used to be in the Old West that the outlaws took money from the trains. Now the trains are taking money from the taxpayers.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Look, the reality is that in vast parts of the country Amtrak just passes through. They don't stop any more. And I understand why they don't stop any more, because ridership is way down. I mean, it's the same reason why people don't ride stage coaches or ride the canal barges.

McCain is a political realist, no matter what his personal view of Amtrak he can not do anything about it because it has too much support from the states and in Congress. The next president will need to work on our nations massive economic problems, ideology on small government will take a back set.

In any case congress has taken control of Amtrak, did so because Bush tried to make an example out of it in an unreasonable way, no president is going to want to battle congress about Amtrak for the foreseeable future. Bush ruined it for his successors. That does not mean that McCain would not propose meager budgets for Amtrak, because he well might, but while doing so he would understand that congress would reverse him, and he would not fight the reversal.

However: I must point out that some astute observers disagree

The Arizonan has said shutting down Amtrak — he's if elected — would be "a non-negotiable issue" for him.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/080128

Sigh! I've pointed this out several times before on this board, and feel compelled to do so again. Amtrak is *not* a Democrat vs. Republican issue. What did Bill Clinton do for Amtrak? Major cuts (yes, I know he had a Republican Congress, but his DOT proposed the cuts). What did Jimmy Carter do for Amtrak? Major cuts (and he had a Democratic Congress).

So let's drop the "Republicans always want to cut Amtrak" cant.

That having been said, what we need is a transportation policy in this country. When George W. leaves office, we will have had 16 years of a policy vacuum (and that covers air, rail, water, highways). That's half my career. We badly need somebody to start taking some responsibility.

IMHO, we need:

1) To make all Interstates into toll highways
2) Completely overhaul and modernize the air traffic control system
3) Institute congestion pricing of roads in urban areas.

If those things are done, the Amtrak problem will fix itself -- once we define what it is we want Amtrak to do.

Folks on this board are welcome to jabber about the evil Republicans and the coming collapse of the US economy, but that won't help Amtrak.

NellieBly wrote:Sigh! I've pointed this out several times before on this board, and feel compelled to do so again. Amtrak is *not* a Democrat vs. Republican issue. .

Wes Vernon does not agree with your view

The issue of transportation, of course, goes straight to the question of infrastructure. That is why the commission majority — representing all shades of political opinion — could come together on it.

Consequently, Weyrich and other conservatives are able to make common cause with liberal Democrats on this very serious matter. Adam Smith and Alexander Hamilton — no socialists they — saw defending the nation and supporting its infrastructure as the two basic responsibilities of the central government. Peters and other Republicans miss the latter point. That is because the sixties focus on public transportation came from the left, which characterized it as something of a welfare handout for those who have no cars and therefore have no choice but the bus or the train. This caused some conservatives to get their backs up against public transit in general and rail transit in particular

from the link above

If you take it as fact that most conservatives are in the republican party then if Vernon is correct this is in part a DEM VS GOP battle. Once the GOP puts down those conservatives who are hostile to public transit then the claim that this is not a party issue will be valid. The GOP must take this action before their hands stop being dirty. I think that the GOP is coming around, I don't think that partisan bickering will help public transit or Amtrak, however truth is truth. Just as those who want to move America forward must not be diverted into blaming the GOP, we also must not defend the GOP were defense is not deserved. Another words, a cease fire is called for.

from Wes Vernon, quoted by icgsteve:

That is because the sixties focus on public transportation came from the left, which characterized it as something of a welfare handout for those who have no cars and therefore have no choice but the bus or the train.

True, but conservative resistance also springs from the Democrats' embrace of the concept of the "nanny-state" and the "New Puritanism" which revolves around the misguided notion that a clique within the Beltway knows what's best for all of us, and can impose these views by creating new Federal authority which, of course, operates on the bureaucratic, rather than the entrepreneurial model.

In reality, the concept is nothing new. Prohibition was the first and most prominent failure. And that concept exists today, for a smaller minority (18- to 20-year olds), with a few states like Lousiana and New York dragged in by "second-tier" Federal pressure (withholding highway funds). Does anyone want to tell me with a straight face that this concept actually works? And we won't bother addressing the "War on Drugs".

The strength of the conservative coalition has been understated in recent years due to the unpopularity of the present administration, but a substantial portion of the disapproval rating comes from that administration's abandonment of fiscal responsibiltity and willingness to engage in an increasinglly unpopular foreign military action. But as with Amtrak itself, ideolgical purity invariably runs up against reality.

Like Giuliani, McCain is usually depicted as a realist/pragmatist who can break roadblocks in the name of the overriding concept of foresight. But McCain is more in synch with the suburban/exurban wing of his party which has less reason to identify with Amtrak. I tend to agree with Mr. Nelligan's and Mr. neroden's view that passenger rail's (not necessarily Amtrak's) increasing suitability to large parts (but not all) of the new economy and the new energy realities will make this a low-profile issue.

1. Congress wastes tons of money. There are countless web-sites devoted to the waste of money through earmarks. The most notable one recently was for the "hippie museum" dedicated to the Woodstock festival. Another one was the "Bridge to Nowhere" by Ted Stevens, who thankfully is retiring. There are tons of other projects out there that can be cut. Hopefully, conservatives and the next President will find the back-bone to do so.

2. Amtrak is a drop in the bucket in the transportation budget, and a speck in the federal budget. The President (whatever his political party) can propose whatever he wants; the power of appropriation rests with Congress.

3. Other posters are correct; Presidents of either party have tried to kill or impair Amtrak, whether outright or surreptitiously (zeroing out the budget, or "reforming" it). There are plenty of conservatives (myself included) who support Amtrak. All this President did was try to break out the NEC and leave the rest to the states. Read the bill of rights: it's called the 10th Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution, including the Commerce Clause, provides or requires for the feds to operate such services. If it's that important to the States, let them fund it (and I would support that). We are, after all, a collective set of sovereignties (50 of them).

For the record, I think the fed role in Amtrak is just fine, if it support commerce and helps the economy. I can think of tons of corridors, some of them long distance, that are vital and need to be improved (the Silver corridor being the first, DC to FL).

But to try to connect it to Iraq? Please. Whether or not you support the war, this is not moveon.org or neocon.net; this is railroad.net. Keep politics (other than those that affect rail policy) out of it.

2nd trick op wrote: True, but conservative resistance also springs from the Democrats' embrace of the concept of the "nanny-state" and the "New Puritanism" which revolves around the misguided notion that a clique within the Beltway knows what's best for al of us, and can impose these views by creating new Federal authority which, of course, operates on the bureaucratic, rather than the entrepreneurial model.

.

You realize how petty that is...."I will not support rail because I don't like your reason for supporting rail"? If you are correct then McCain and those of his ilk need to pay attention to the economic benefits of effective transit...Ie grow up.