Just to be clear: By “Congressman” here we’re referring to Ron Paul. Hard as it sometimes is to believe, he really is an elected member of Congress–because he’s also a weird old man with a blimp, more rabid fans than most rock stars, and lots of ideas that make you go “Hmm” (if not “Huh?!”).
One of Paul’s recent dispatches for blogworld is called “GM, Amtrak and an Increasing Fascist America.” Put on your brown shirts and your conductors hats, kids, hop in your Malibu and let’s go burn some books. Maybe? We’re not totally sure. Here’s what Dr. Paul says:
The promise that [the GM takeover] is temporary… is of little comfort to those who remember similar promises when the American taxpayers bought Amtrak. After three years, government was supposed to be out of the passenger rail business. 40 years and billions of dollars later, the government is still operating Amtrak at a loss, despite the fact that they have created a monopoly by making it illegal to compete with Amtrak.
So… the fact that it gets government subsidies makes Amtrak a fascist organization? YES! says Paul. “Comingling public control of private business is known as fascism. While today’s politicians may feel emboldened with all their new power, history will only repeat itself as all this collapses on itself.” Repeat itself like the Italian experiments in the 30s and early 40s, it sounds like he means to suggest. If that’s the case, in a few years we’ll need a liberating army to come in and break up the Amtrak monopoly and ceremonially blow up the GM headquarters (perhaps the French will do backsies).
More seriously, it seems odd to choose Amtrak as a primary example of intermingling of government and business interests. That phenomenon has certainly occurred in America and is disturbing in some cases, but the passenger rail company isn’t a very compelling case in point. For whatever reason though (rail reminds them of European-style “democratic socialism”?), critics fixate on Amtrak and turn it into this terrifying Frankenstein monster of state control and waste. The company and its service could certainly be better — but it’s crazy to suggest that Amtrak is some insatiable beast devouring massive amounts of America’s wealth. Over nearly four decades, Amtrak subsidies are a pittance compared to the taxpayer money that’s been blown on almost any other societal enterprise you could name–including other modes of motorized transportation. Actually, one could argue, our little fascist rail company has been quite a bargain.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Actually, since 1971 (which is nearly 40 years now) Amtrak has cost in excess of $20 billion, which is still pocket change in government terms.
The biggest problem with Amtrak is that it has never had enough Federal support to expand into new markets or try new types of services. For example, all Amtrak trains passing through Ohio stop there between 10 PM and 7 AM, since they’re all on their way to or from someplace else. The result is that North Carolina, which funds a pair of daytime trains between Charlotte and Raleigh in addition to the Amtrak through trains that pass through at less convenient hours, has more annual Amtrak riders than Ohio!
Ohio is proposing to start Cleveland — Columbus — Cincinnati service with some of the stimulus “high speed rail” money. Amtrak should have done that 35 years ago.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Isn’t the point that it isn’t profitable? Isn’t the point that it is ultimately unsustainable? Finally, isn’t the point that without taking money from every American to prop it up, it wouldn’t exist as it does today?
Never mind that. Let’s trash Paul!
Just a suggestion: writing a piece that basically says, “I don’t have the facts to make my case, but in general terms, the other guy is wrong” is an unconvincing way to get folks to support your side of the debate.
4 billion is still a lot of money, even if its relatively small, however I doubt this is a fixation on Amtrak. Amtrak was just an example, and his point was not lost. Everybody succeeds if a business doesn’t have to operate at a profit.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
To the 1st commentator:
“The biggest problem with Amtrak is that it has never had enough Federal support to expand into new markets or try new types of services.”
Amtrak, like any other business, should earn its own revenue and its own market share.
I couldn’t finish the article after the author said “So… the fact that it gets government subsidies makes Amtrak a fascist organization? YES! says Paul.” The author is attempting to establish that Paul feels that subsidies = fascism from the Paul quote he pasted into this story, which cannot be done.
If I wrote this story, I too would not want my name on it.
It is the fact that competing with Amtrak is illegal that makes Amtrak fascist.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
If Amtrak is just like fascist Italy, then why doesn’t in run on time?
June 18th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Thanks, Randy — I cut the figure from the piece. I’ve seen $30 billion thrown around, but not in contexts I particularly trust. Would like to see something authoritative.
Jebediah
June 18th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I am definitely for rail passenger service in America, especially over shorter corridors. Whether or not Amtrak is the right way to go about it is another debate altogether. I have enough experience riding their system to know that their trains are not running empty, but I seriously doubt that they are operating anywhere close to being as efficient as the could be. In theory at least, government agencies can be reformed. Political reality is another question altogether. Joseph Vranich is a former Amtrak employee who still has a strong belief in inter-city rail service, but he no longer believes in Amtrak. He has written several books that outline a proposal for viable inter-city rail service in what he hopes will become a “post-Amtrak environment.” Whether his proposals are workable or not, he is worth reading. His books have the endorsement of the CATO Institute and the American Enterprise Institute.
As far as saying that any transportation proposal is “Facist”, this is extreme to say the least. President Eisenhowers’s genesis for the Interstate Highway System began when he saw the Autobaun Highway System in Germany in WWII. This was Hitler’s idea, along with his strong conviction that the common man should be able to own and use a car. Should I conclude that superhighways and automobility are Facist inventions too?
June 18th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
This is a good piece (if a bit dated) about Amtrak as whipping boy in the media:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1112
-Jebediah
June 18th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“Isn’t the point that it isn’t profitable?”
Nope. Roads aren’t profitable either.
” Isn’t the point that it is ultimately unsustainable? ”
Nope. After we give up on roads, trains will still be there.
“Finally, isn’t the point that without taking money from every American to prop it up, it wouldn’t exist as it does today?”
Without taking money from every American to prop up the competition, Amtrak would thrive.
“Never mind that. Let’s trash Paul!”
Let’s also trash him for thinking it’s illegal to compete with Amtrak when in fact there are other passenger trains running in the country.
He’s a nut. And an ignorant one to boot.
“Just a suggestion: writing a piece that basically says, “I don’t have the facts to make my case, but in general terms, the other guy is wrong” is an unconvincing way to get folks to support your side of the debate.”
Tell that to Ron Paul.
“4 billion is still a lot of money, even if its relatively small, however I doubt this is a fixation on Amtrak. Amtrak was just an example, and his point was not lost. Everybody succeeds if a business doesn’t have to operate at a profit.”
Compared to our roads budget, this is tiny.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“It is the fact that competing with Amtrak is illegal that makes Amtrak fascist.”
Okay, so it’s a complete fantasy that makes Amtrak fascist.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Let’s be fair. Paul claims that Amtrak is the result of a policy of economic fascism characterized by extensive government involvement (ownership and direction) in private industry.
Also, before you quote figures, you might do might do a little research. According to Wikipedia, we are currently appropriating $2.6 billion per year to Amtrak through 2013. Taxpayers provide over $100 for every 1000 miles travelled by each Amtrak passenger. Does this still sound like a bargain? Further, the legislation that created Amtrak also gave it a monopoly on interstate passenger rail service. So, even if someone comes up with a truly cost-effective, attractive, competitive business plan for passenger rail service in this country, it would be illegal for them to implement their vision. Meanwhile, we, the taxpayers - most of whom never ride Amtrak - are forced by our government to buy the tickets for those who do. That is economic fascism. Amtrak is a failure and a fraud. It is a racket that fleeces the American taxpayer and funnels billions of dollars to well-connected special interests.
The conditions under which the government entered the passenger rail industry now repeat themselves with the current situation surrounding the auto industry. What will happen when GM misses its deadline for self-sufficiency? Will our leaders show any more resolve than they did when Amtrak came back hat in hand? Or will they do another “deal” to keep the money flowing to their supporters (and themselves)?
Ron Paul’s concerns are completely rational and justified in my opinion, and they underscore the moral hazard created when government injects itself into the free market and chooses sides.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
The problem with Amtrak (and the direct other side of the coin: Federal Highway System) is that the entire transportation system here in America is grossly inefficient and disfigured because of governmental involvement. The government put Amtrak out of business by subsidizing trucking and personal vehicles through the highways. Shipping/transporting by rail is VASTLY more effective (not to mention environmentally better in regards to pollution etc) yet we ’somehow’ became a nation of 2-3 car families, overrun with parking spaces and roadways. If the government had stayed out of transportation, stayed away from oil subsidies and multiple other methods of affecting transport (both long and short), then America would have an amazing interconnected, efficient, effective transport system for both passenger and freight - it almost pisses me off how much productivity has been subverted from each and every citizen to line the pockets of politicians and their select friends. Thanks for listening!
June 18th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Mr Reed, do you often require people to highlight the obvious for you?
The reason Dr Paul brought up Amtrack was that back then the Nixon admin promised that gov’t intervention was temporary (3 years to be exact), just like the Obama regime is promising regarding GM. Dr Paul was pointing out gov’t track record on temporary nationalization and not picking on Amtrack based on the size of its losses.
And before you get all giddy about the relative “pittance” of the losses, you should take into account that Amtrack is government conferred monopoly. If Standard Oil or Microsoft were to post similar size losses I’d be more sympathetic to your “bargain” assessment. Privatize Amtrack, remove gov’t protection and introduce competition, and Amtrack will be tripping over GM on it’s way to bankruptcy courts.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Government and the public have always provided the foundational infrastructure for private entrepreneurship to grow on. If we really want to get the ball rolling on infrastructure projects (and stick one right in Ron Paul’s craw), call and write your congressional representatives and senators and ask them to consider and pass the Oberstar-Mica bipartisan transportation overhaul.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“Meanwhile, we, the taxpayers - most of whom never ride Amtrak - are forced by our government to buy the tickets for those who do.”
I hope you don’t mean “buy the tickets” literally; because that is definitely not the case.
It is true that Amtrak is subsidized, but when you compare that subsidy to all of the subsidies given to the interstate system over the same time period, it is by all means clear who takes the vast majority of funding…the highway system.
All transportation is subsidized and needs to be subsidized by the government, it is provided as an economic engine, benefit to the citizens etc… It’s how everything moves in any country.
The argument that Amtrak is a waste of money and should be shut down because they don’t turn a profit, is a ridiculous argument. Roads, bridges, highways, airports and all other transportation is subsidized and does not make a profit (there might be a few exceptions), there is no reason why these forms of transportation should be held to a different standard than passenger rail.
All transportation is subsidized because in this day and age, it can’t be implemented by a private entity. I would like to see a private company build a new interstate (not buy one from government), the cost is so extraordinary, it is nearly impossible. Government funding for transportation, is how it is built, regardless of whether or not it turns a profit.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
libertarians always conveniently ignore that it was the government that put restrictions on railroads and overtaxed them to death. we had private railroads, transit companies and ferries, then government policy subsidizing the automobile with free roads and bridges killed these private tax paying companies and forced everyone to travel by car and truck. libertarians love the government when it comes to their car.
ron paul is a libertarian nutjob
June 18th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
The problem is - the word “facist” is a politically loaded word. Ron Paul is using the word in its pure economic sense and he is correct.
Communist - government owns enterprise.
Facist - government controls enterprise.
Socialist - government regulates enterprise.
Free enterprise - free enterprise. No governmental interference.
Let’s not get hung up in semantics …
June 18th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I agree 100% with LPM. Neither system should be subsidized. I actually give republicans credit for wanting to privatize both amtrak and the highway system. Such a step would discourage driving and go a long way towards taking our country on a path to self sufficiency and reduce our budget deficit.
In addition, if the government stayed out of transportation, there would be incentive to improve technology and increase efficiency. Trains 100 years ago could travel over 100 mph, a lot better than what most trains do today. And we had interurban networks in every city in this country that made our country way better than what any other country as today. I can imagine that we would be traveling far faster and cheaper had our government stayed out of transportation, and we wouldn’t be dependent on oil and would have far less pollution. And our cities would be way healthier, as our old cities have been destroyed by our government bulldozing neighborhoods to place these highways.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Sparky,
Yes! But the point is Dr. Paul (I love calling him Dr Paul) knows that the word is loaded.
-Jebediah
June 18th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Well, if they above are true, no country in the entire world has ever had and still doesn’t have free enterprise.
Also, Socialist doesn’t equate to government regulates enterprise. If this was true, any regulation whatsoever would be socialist, which is definitely not accurate.
I agree, we shouldn’t get hung up on semantics, therefore, mentioning these terms and attaching a generic definition to them is exactly what you say we shouldn’t do.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
So we have a deregulated, efficient, vital, private, and profitable freight rail system in this country - running on many of the same tracks used by Amtrak - yet interstate passenger rail service can only survive as a money-losing, government monopoly controlled by bureaucrats and subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Do I have this right?
Why do you think that given the opportunity and the freedom, the private sector could not also create a self-sustaining interstate passenger rail service? And if it could not attract enough riders - if given a level playing field the market rejected passenger rail in favor of some other mode of transportation - then why on earth should we all be forced to pay to continue an unsustainable business? What is the critical benefit or value that justifies the confiscation of our hard-earned money for this?
Because if you can still justify subsidizing a money-losing passenger rail system, I guess you could likewise justify the resumption of stagecoach routes and telegraph service on the taxpayers’ dime. Right?
June 18th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Libertarians are for gov’t regulation, taxation and subsidies, Poncho?! Which orifice did you pull that out of?
June 18th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I agree with Paul, not some taxpayer leaching advocate like “the infrastructurist”.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Ron Paul is absolutely right. Amtrak has been a continual money-loser, and the federal government continues to think that the only solution is to dump Amtrak more money while continuing control of it.
A better approach would be to sell Amtrak and pass train track rail responsibility to to the states, just like the highway system. Keep it localized, or at least lower the amount of federal subsidies to various small things here and there.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“Because if you can still justify subsidizing a money-losing passenger rail system, I guess you could likewise justify the resumption of stagecoach routes and telegraph service on the taxpayers’ dime. Right?”
If you left this out, you might have had a better argument. Comparing passenger rail to stagecoach routes and telegraph service is ridiculous.
Your points are well taken, but you don’t reference the subsidies of airports, interstates and roads. I say we let all of those be given a level playing field and be run, maintained and new projects be entirely constructed by private industry and we’ll see how long they survive, or even begin, especially new construction.
…as you say “then why on earth should we all be forced to pay to continue an unsustainable business? What is the critical benefit or value that justifies the confiscation of our hard-earned money for this?”
The reason they are subsidized is for more transportation options that provide a greater benefit for the public.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Grant, one of the main reasons why Amtrak loses so much money it is because it shares the tracks with freight. The freight railways own the tracks and Amtrak trains are often delayed by hours due to freight having the priority. This dramatically increases staff costs and rolling stock costs per trip while reducing demand and decreasing the price that Amtrak can charge per ticket.
The bigger picture is that with dwindling oil supplies and rising costs both driving and flying face very uncertain futures. High speed rail is the only solution that has a certain future and does not depend on technological miracles.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Wait… If amtrak is Fascist, what does that make our Interstate Highway system?! My GOD we need to charge a toll for EVERY road and sidewalk so that we are not Fascist or communist!
June 18th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Actually Dr. Paul’s assertions are correct. I believe his political philosophy is worth listening too.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
You already do pay a “toll” for EVERY road and sidewalk. If you worked out the amount, you’d be hiking dirt roads to work,… if you had a choice which you don’t.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Richard,
I’m sorry but I don’t buy it. I’ve ridden Amtrak and the trains almost always run on time. If they didn’t the bureaucrats wouldn’t even ride their own trains! The reason Amtrak loses money is because it can. It operates in a vacuum, insulated from market forces, just like all other government monopolies.
When gas was cheap Amtrak lost money. When gas was $4 a gallon and ridership was up %15, it still lost money. If the laws of physics changed and airplanes ceased to fly, and we all had to ride Amtrak, it would still lose money. It’s designed to lose money.
The $100 in subsidies required for each 1000 passenger miles is by far the highest rate of any major mode of transportation in this country.
I certainly agree that subsidies have skewed the evolution of transportation in this country, but with the highway system fuel taxes provide an offset to subsidies based on use, while airline travel is a highly competitive market - the vast majority of it private - that naturally enforces efficiency and promotes innovation. In both cases, freight and passenger transportation services are private and competitive. Amtrak is the only exception here.
I do not believe that Amtrak is the only viable model for interstate passenger rail service in this country. I do believe that the government and its partners in Amtrak have a vested interest in maintainig the status quo, and that this interest supercedes the best interests of the American taxpayer and even rail passengers, who might be getting much better service and cheaper fares if the private sector was allowed compete in this market.
With the advent of “too big to fail” the propping up of almost any company or industry with taxpayer dollars can be justified, and in every case we run the risk of creating another Amtrak: an unnecessary, inefficient bureaucracy that transfers the property of ordinary citizens - by force - to the elite and their cohorts in the name of progress and social justice.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Grant,
The major flaw in your argument is the following:
“but with the highway system fuel taxes provide an offset to subsidies based on use, while airline travel is a highly competitive market - the vast majority of it private”
In no way do fuel taxes offset subsidies based on use, that was the intent, but in no way correct, if it was, the highway fund wouldn’t be going bust in August. Second, the airline market may be competitive, but airports and many aspects that go with them are highly subsidized as well.
If Amtrak had been reaping the same proportion of benefits that the airline industry and highway system has, things would be completely different. I don’t have a problem with privatization of passenger rail in this country, but the major problem that exists is the matters of eminent domain and the building of new right of ways for high speed rail. The old right of ways need major modifications to make them straighter, which will no doubt require land grabs, the same way the interstate system works and the only way this can happen is through government support. The costs associated with this for private capital is far too inhibitive for it to work.
I feel the best form would be federal/state ownership of ROWs and the tracks, while trains could be operated by private companies. But not until the system is up and running to a much better degree than it currently is.
This would in effect, work the same way as the airline industry.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
The author misses the whole point. The government taking over the auto companies (and other businesses) is a huge mistake. And a textbook example is the Amtrak story.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Kyle,
I don’t know the actual difference between federal highway subsidies awarded and federal fuel taxes collected, do you? Further, I don’t know that fuel taxes collected are actually allocated to highway upkeep, just like social security taxes somehow don’t end up in trust fund’s “lock box”, but that is a different conversation
What “proportion of benefits” are you talking about? The Amtrak model requires $100 in subsidies for every 1000 passenger miles. It is brutally inefficient, and much higher than subsidies paid for other modes of transportation. You could actually idle some of the trains and simply buy airline tickets for passengers with the money that Amtrak gets from us. Isn’t that, by itself, an indictment of this enterprise?
Why is the (private) freight rail industry thriving and Amtrak struggling?
Why not get the federal government out of the rail business and let states and private interests figure out how to make passenger service viable again? Let innovation and private capital back into the equation.
There is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the federal government’s involvement in the railroad industry, and it’s doing a lousy job at our expense.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Wow - this is really exciting.
I had heard about them waiting on the internet for the slightest mention of the revered name of Dr. Paul, but I’ve never seen Paulbots conducting a real live raid.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
[...] (In case you had any remaining doubts) « I just won the lottery! [...]
June 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
State rail companies are standard around the world. They work well in most places. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. But Amtrak was created as this strange, unloved bastard child that never could have succeeded any more than it has.
For the record: Private competition is great — bring it on. I noticed that Italy will soon be getting a private high speed rail service that will compete with state company. That’s wonderful. And if we could have a functional fully private passenger rail system in this country, that would be fine too. But there’s no way it could just magically spring to life when we’ve spend trillions of dollars building, subsidizing and encouraging the use of highways for travel that would (arguably) be better accomplished by rail. Government is involved in all this. It’s not going to just disappear at this stage in the game.
Anyway, the notion that government shouldn’t be involved in transportation is just weird. By its nature, it is one area–along with defense–that almost requires it.
But why do I feel like I might be beating my head against a wall here?
-Jebediah
June 18th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
If the federal government should be hands off on the rail business, then they should be hands off on the interstate and roads business as well as aviation. But they are not, because they are required, where as Amtrak has been basically brushed aside in regards to federal funding. I’m not going to look for the exact figures of federal subsidies comparing highways and Amtrak for the past 40 years, I don’t really have the time. All I’m saying is that all transportation funding should be on level footing. More people drive, because that is where the funding has gone, forcing people to drive…but this is a long conversation.
I don’t know where that $100 for every 1000 passenger mile figure comes from, but if you provided that, then provide me with the same aspect for the highways.
Freight rail thrives because they have been on the same right of ways for over a century now and only need to keep up with maintenance, whereas Amtrak rides on the same lines which have only been kept up for slow moving freight rail and haven’t been kept up to date, to provide the fastest and most efficient passenger rail service. Plus, a large amount of Amtrak lines were eliminated over time.
You say that the federal government should get out of rail and states and private enterprise should take over, if that’s what should happen, then the same should be done with all roads and highways. Suggesting otherwise is a double standard.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Not all Amtrak monies come from the Fed. The state of California funds 3 trains operating expenses that run in California not to mention Station upgrades and other capital improvements. I am not sure about other states. So not all funding is Fed $. Some of the lines are profitable, but it is expensive to run trains through out the US. The UK has private companies running their train system, but they aren’t doing any better. Trains are an important piece of the US transportation plan and say what you will, need to be subsidized.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
“If the federal government should be hands off on the rail business, then they should be hands off on the interstate and roads business as well as aviation.”
Well, if you haven’t figured it out yet, you won’t get an argument from me if you propose that the federal government rescind most of its control over aviation and highways. I found this article because the author commented on Ron Paul, whose postions on economics and the free market I happen to support.
You can find the subsidy per mile stats here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak Look in the section titled “Controversy”.
Your contention that all transportation modes should be funded equally is specious, I think. Why should we fund a model that does not provide a good return on investment? Just because passenger rail works in other countries does not mean it can or must work here; there are many differences economically, geographically, culturally, politically, etc. that can change the equation. And how are we to decide what will “work”? Does government have the answer? Like when it decided to subsidize ethanol production to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil”? Was that a good decision?
Freight rail came back to viability in this country only after the government released its control over the industry and let the market work. The collective wisdom and efforts of the multitude of individuals in the market seeking value found a viable use for the resources. I think this is also passenger rail’s best chance. After all, we’ve had government rail for over 30 years, spent tens of billions of dollars, and the results are less than impressive.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Well…thanks for the enlightening dialogue, TJ!
I have yet to hear an argument against Amtrak that makes any sense.
Richard Campbell is absolutely correct - freight railways are the big problem.
In a nutshell (Ron Paul’s skull), Amtrak doesn’t operate properly because of TWO fundamental problems that have been caused by the Republicans:
1. Freight railways in America (i.e. Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, CSX, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, etc.) HATE having to stop their trains for Amtrak. SHOULD the freight railways begin operating passenger service if it’s profitable? Yes, but the people running the railroads today are NOT the people of a hundred years ago. They don’t want to bother with passengers. It’s not their business and they don’t care. Their only interest is moving freight.
Amtrak operates over these railways because they have “trackage rights.” If the railways purposely delay Amtrak trains on their track, they are penalized. But over the last few decades, the freight railways have realized that it’s more profitable to delay Amtrak trains and take the fine. Why? Because NO ONE’S ENFORCING THE LAW!! Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush did NOTHING to enforce these laws because they were in bed with the railroads. Don’t kid yourself - those railroad lobbyists are VERY powerful, and Clinton wasn’t even a true Democrat (this is the guy who signed NAFTA!!) Furthermore, delaying Amtrak trains and making them late continues to hurt Amtrak’s reputation, therefore turning public opinion against it (like Grant and Barney above). The freight railroads hope to finally get Amtrak off their tracks so they can run better, and that’s how they do it!
2. Amtrak’s second problem is that the government hasn’t given Amtrak enough money to buy more passenger cars and locomotives to fill the demand. There IS a demand for Amtrak - here in Minneapolis, it’s difficult to buy a ticket because all trains are booked up for weeks ahead. If Amtrak is filling up trains, it’s still not making enough money to cover the operating costs. If Amtrak had MORE equipment to increase the capacity, it could be profitable! But Republicans have been blocking this for decades because of people like Grant, TJ and Barney who can’t stand their tax dollars being used for something that “doesn’t work.” How does THAT make any sense? But that’s exactly what Republicans will tell you - Amtrak doesn’t work, and YOU’RE paying for it. Quite simply, if Amtrak had more money, it would begin making money!
This is largely why so many people who understand infrastructure are so excited about President Obama! Bill Clinton was barely a Democrat. Now we’ve got someone who will begin to enforce the law stated above and give Amtrak the equipment it needs. I don’t know if you guys have ever actually looked at a typical passenger car, but they’re BIG - VERY BIG, and expensive.
Obama and Biden GET IT.
And let me add another thing: For the sake of argument, let’s say Amtrak REALLY IS destined to be a money pit for the government. So what?
Here’s a quote from an acquaintance of mine last year in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Some then cling to the idea that mass transit should be profitable, as a business must be. These critics forget that mass transit is a basic service, just like the police or education. Should we start billing victims of robberies or shaking down kids for their lunch money? Mass transit is a public good. Just because some folks have a fortune to spend on gas doesn’t mean we all do.” (A. Imboden, 2008)
This was written about light rail in Minneapolis, but the same concept applies. Amtrak is a necessary service provided by the government. Take a moment and go to Google Maps. Look at ANY large American metropolitan area (with the whole thing fitting on your screen). It’s blatantly clear where the airport is because it’s HUGE!! Any typical airport is the size of many whole neighborhoods.
Now consider this: By the year 2100, the population of America will at LEAST double, likely triple. We’re talking 900,000,000 people! How many more HUGE airports will we have to build? How far outside the city will they be? How many more runways will need to be built, increasing chances of mid-air collisions? How many more people will be unable to escape the loud noise of jets overhead when they’re trying to enjoy their evening in the backyard?
Without zooming in, now find the train station. You can’t! See what I mean?
Once again, we’ve got a topic that exposes the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives only care about themselves and their wallets - and if their money goes to someone else who needs it and doesn’t benefit them directly, the attitude is “Screw’em.”
Liberals, on the other hand, actually care about the well-being of our fellow Americans and the future of this great country. The advancement of Amtrak is one such case. Ron Paul is a fool.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
The funny thing is, Ron’s comparison to Amtrak isn’t even the right one. He should have compared it to Conrail. In the 1970s, the federal government took control of several bankrupt railroads, consolidated them into one, nurtured it to profitability, and then sold it off to private investors in what was at the time the largest IPO in history.
Ron’s supporters also, in their unending quest to out-unfederalize each other, ignore a fundamental fact about surface transportation: it is inherently an interstate issue. Let’s say that Illinois and Ohio want to run a train between Cincinnati and Chicago. If Indiana doesn’t want to contribute, that train won’t run even though the states around it would derive significant benefit. We’ve already seen the problems that Connecticut has foisted upon the Northeast Corridor because the tracks there are state-owned. For decades trains had to switch locomotives in New York because Connecticut wouldn’t pay for electrification. And, as everyone knows, the transport of people across state lines for pay is Interstate Commerce and therefore clearly under the domain of the federal government.
Furthermore, Amtrak doesn’t have a statutory monopoly. You are free to start your own passenger railroad tomorrow. Of course, the owners of the tracks have already made it clear that they’re not interested in dealing with anyone but Amtrak, so you might have a problem there. And Amtrak owns the stations in the major cities and they might not want to share. And Amtrak has all the rights to the passenger car designs that meet American crashworthiness standards, so you’ll have to design your own from scratch and find someone willing to build them for you. But I’m sure GE would sell you a locomotive, so you’ve got that going for you.
On top of that, Amtrak actually recovers a greater portion of its costs through user fees than the road system does. See, your car doesn’t know when it’s burning gas on a state or federal highway and when it’s burning gas on city streets and county roads. It burns gas (and therefore pays gas tax) no matter where it goes. You are paying gas taxes when you’re driving on roads paid for out of property taxes, meaning that property taxes are actually subsidizing the highway system. The highway system recovers about 60% of its costs through user fees; Amtrak covers 71% of its costs through fares, station income, and contracted services.
The train has left the station on this one, guys. The public wants more trains and is willing to pay taxes for them. You may want to pick another fight.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Yep - Tim in Wisconsin’s got another good point.
Hey Tim, you ever read “Wreck of the Penn Central” by Joe Daughen and Pete Binzen? That’s a damn good book!
June 18th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
These past few comments were excellent and do a great job debunking the right-wing hand wringing about Amtrak.
France, Germany, Spain, and China’s passenger rail operators are state-owned and do a fabulous job. There is no reason why Amtrak can’t do the same. Amtrak does a fabulous job given the ridiculous difficulties it faces such as low funding and sharing right-of-way with slow moving freight trains.
GM and Chrysler came to the government for aid, so it’s not like this was some sort of hostile public takeover. I have no problem with the government owning companies. I prefer it to private sector ownership. Publicly owned companies are much more accountable.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Britain privatized its rail service in the early 1990s and the results were so disastrous that the Labor government re-organized the ownership into not-for-profit organization named Network Rail. Be careful what you wish for libertarian nutjobs. The private sector screws up all the time.
I hate to break up your free market circle jerk, but capitalism is far from perfect.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:20 am
I keep seeing people claim that trains need to be subsidized, that they won’t spring to live suddenly.
Sorry, but the original trains we had weren’t provided by the feds. They came from private enterprise. They sprang to life because there was a market for them.
Right now, there’s a HUGE market for better transportation, including better rail systems. The problem is that people are blocked from providing innovative rail solutions. There are several great designs for practical rail systems, including inexpensive systems that can start small and grow, but before they can be built, the current laws have to be changed to allow them to exist. Laws such as the one that blocks competition with Amtrack. Laws such as the ones that cities impose to block private alternatives to city controlled trains.
Not all of the alternatives even require using any additional land than the current rails use. One approach is a train that doesn’t stop, but drops off cars at each station. Another is a 2-4 passenger unit that runs above the existing rail system. Not being 35 tons of train, it wouldn’t take as strong a structure to support it the entire distance. This latter one would be on-demand rather than scheduled, so it would only ever be used when someone is paying to ride it. All the benefits of cheap rail without the scheduling nightmares.
I’d love to see ANY of the alternatives rather than the classic go-stop-go train design, but that can’t happen while governments decide which are permitted.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Sean: “Britain privatized its rail service in the early 1990s and the results were so disastrous that the Labor government re-organized the ownership into not-for-profit organization named Network Rail. Be careful what you wish for libertarian nutjobs. The private sector screws up all the time.
I hate to break up your free market circle jerk, but capitalism is far from perfect.”
Aside from the fact that people can’t even agree whether Network Rail is publicly managed or privately managed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail), or whether it was nationalized because it was going bankrupt or another reason, the fact is that it’s customers are private companies that actually handle the trains. Network Rail handles the infrastructure, which is COMPLETELY opposite of Amtrak. With Amtrak, the lines are private and the train is publicly funded.
But aside from that, you’re not winning the argument by saying the other party is composed of nutjobs performing a circle-jerk.
Sure, the private sector screws up all the time, and sometimes the private sector does great things. Either way, the public wins.
When the public sector screws up, everyone loses.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Sean: btw, it sounds like the British rail system was screwy from day one anyway. Can’t blame it on privatization if it didn’t work out.
public rail system…not working out, let’s privatize it and see if it helps.
private rail system…not working out, let’s nationalize the rail lines themselves and see if it helps.
confused rail system…is it working out? Sure hope the people who we only paid 2 pounds per share aren’t still mad at us.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:46 am
[...] Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says Amtrak is putting America on a fascist path … yup, totally on par with the Fed, congressman (Infrastructurist) [...]
June 19th, 2009 at 10:13 am
“The funny thing is, Ron’s comparison to Amtrak isn’t even the right one. He should have compared it to Conrail. In the 1970s, the federal government took control of several bankrupt railroads, consolidated them into one, nurtured it to profitability, and then sold it off to private investors in what was at the time the largest IPO in history. ”
Tim, I think Ron’s fear is that the auto industry will go the way of Amtrak while your hope is that it will go the way of Conrail. The jury is still out on that one. My position is that the market should be left to take care of the car companies and that no good will come from my tax dollars propping up these failed businesses.
Regarding your implicit praise of the government’s role in Conrail, I have to point out that the conditions leading to the bankruptcy of the six major railroads that precipitated the government’s intercession were themselves caused by the government!
From conrail.com: “Although there were many reasons for the economic difficulties they [the railroads] faced, chief among them was competition from trucks, subsidized by the federally-built Interstate highway system, and an archaic system of economic regulation which prevented railroads from responding to the needs of the market.”
Let’s not praise the doctor who supervised our water boarding for resuscitating us!
June 19th, 2009 at 10:58 am
“France, Germany, Spain, and China’s passenger rail operators are state-owned and do a fabulous job.”
“GM and Chrysler came to the government for aid, so it’s not like this was some sort of hostile public takeover. I have no problem with the government owning companies. I prefer it to private sector ownership. Publicly owned companies are much more accountable.”
Sean, government ownership of the means of production is not a new concept, and you are not alone in this opinion. But I would ask you to consider the kinds of power needed by a government that can build and operate a nationwide industry. What liberties must the people concede in order for government to wield this kind of unilateral power?
After 8 years of the Bush administration’s exploits, can you really say with conviction that government is any more accountable or credible than the private sector? In fact, I would suggest that the worst corruption, deceit, and inefficiency found in the private sector is almost always enabled and protected by government. In a truly free market, such counterproductive behavior would lead to economic ruin.
Somewhere along the line people began to adopt the notion that civil liberty and economic liberty were somehow distinct and that presence of the former was more indicative of a free society than the latter. I consider economic freedoms inseparable and vital to a free society. When government interferes in the economy we are less free. When governement takes our property by force to use as it pleases, we are less free.
Many inhumane and repressive regimes have built impressive civil infrastructure. It is a poor substitute for individual liberty.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Dan, only a Washington attorney could look at the Commerce Clause and find the authorization for a federally owned and operated railway!
If ticket revenue does not cover the cost of running the trains, then un-met demand cannot justify increased capacity. If this were the case, then we should set ticket prices at $0 and the demand would justify a railway to everyone’s front door!
I agree with you about NAFTA. I disagree that transportation is “public good” (code word for a “right”?) or that markets are not the most efficient way for transportation services to be provided, just like most other services.
Finally, this discussion started because Ron Paul said he was worried that the car company bailout would result in a government owned and operated auto industry, like Amtrak. I share his concerns and agree that such an outcome would do more harm to the economy than good.
I am no expert on rail transport, although I know a lot more now than I did a little while ago. If the current administration wants to expand Amtrak, it’s certainly not the worst thing they could do. But if they do, I hope they are honest with the American people about how it will be paid for. I hope they have the integrity to either raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere in order to afford it. As a matter of fact I would gladly trade the wars and our foreign occupation overseas for a better domestic rail system.
I certainly do not agree with your simplistic characterization of liberals and conservatives and suggest that such a perception does nothing but perpetuate the two-party monopoly in Washington. It is a false characterization that distracts us from fundamental issues about government and further ensconces the current establishment (both parties) in power.
Self-interest is not synonymous with greed. Greed is an unproductive motive.
It does not drive the free market. The free market is driven by productivity and efficiency. In a free market, those who provide the best services at the best price are rewarded. The accumulation of wealth is, therefore, a reflection of one’s ability to best satisfy the needs of others through a system of voluntary exchange. Greedy people need an unfair advantage in the market, like that afforded by government favoritism, in order to survive.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Today’s lesson is on economic fascism…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo173.html
June 21st, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“The free market is driven by …”
The whole point of a successful business is to gain competitive advantage.
Railroads dropped money losing passenger rail as cheap oil and government built Interstates allowed buses and autos to dominate the transportation industry.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 am
Actually, what is fascist is that in the 40s and 50s the highway and airline lobbies conspired with politicians on all levels to regulate the passenger rail and urban transit companies out of existence so that we could be come a society totally dependent on the wasteful, filthy albatross known as automobile. Now we’re left trying to level the playing field by developing a form of travel that should have never been dismantled.
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Wow - this is really exciting.
I had heard about them waiting on the internet for the slightest mention of the revered name of Dr. Paul, but I’ve never seen Paulbots conducting a real live raid.
there’s certain terms that cult followers enter into their computer and they get email alerts when a website or blog they’ve never visited has new posts, then they gather their army and attack. the term “ron paul” is one such well known example. ‘PRT’ is another.
it is really funny that with transportation, libertarians dont mind government regulation when it comes to government imposing an auto-centric lifestyle. they dont mind new public roads and bridges putting private ferries, railroads and streetcar companies out of business.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
This thread seems to have run its course, but I’d like to pose one simple question to the Ron Paul supporters:
When gas spikes to $6, $8 or $10 a gallon in the coming years, wouldn’t it be prudent to have a national high speed rail system (supported by the federal government as necessary) in place as an alternative for the millions of Americans who will no longer be able to afford to drive or fly long distances?
Just because something doesn’t pass a narrowly defined libertarian economic litmus test under today’s conditions doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. Some of us actually have the capacity to think about what the world may look like 10 or 20 years in the future and believe we need to prepare for likely circumstances. And the idea that gas may become prohibitively expensive within our lifetimes is a very real possibility.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“it is really funny that with transportation, libertarians dont mind government regulation when it comes to government imposing an auto-centric lifestyle. they dont mind new public roads and bridges putting private ferries, railroads and streetcar companies out of business.”
Where are you getting your ideas about libertarianism? We are very much opposed to the things you named there.
“When gas spikes to $6, $8 or $10 a gallon in the coming years, wouldn’t it be prudent to have a national high speed rail system (supported by the federal government as necessary) in place as an alternative for the millions of Americans who will no longer be able to afford to drive or fly long distances?”
Why does it have to be supported (or run) by the federal government? As has been pointed out, private rail moved freight very efficiently without government subsidy, why is it so hard to believe that private rail could move people too?
June 28th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
And this “Whackjob” ran for President ?
Whew! Boy, I sure wouldn’t want him to have his finger on the “RED”
button!!!!!!
An individual that can’t get his facts straight as is obvious in light of the convoluted
“JABBERWOCKY” logic he espouses in his little neo-con rightwing-nut tirade is
frightening.
THe fact of the matter is that Amtrak Employees worked [8] eight years without
a Union contract cheerfully and generously trying to help the System survive up to
2007 during all the bleak last ten years of the “paultry cheapskate” Budget
appropriations the “REactionary GOP” Congress parceled out. Some years the “BUSH
MAN” White Castle snapped the rug for not a “Red Cent”.
He had plenty money to throw away on TWO [2] Endless, Pointless WARS but nary
a soue’ for something practical or beneficial to the Country.
After running up the most reckless, horrendous explosive budget in 10 years and
sitting back and allowing Wall Street and his “Texas Cronies” take over, the end
result is the Country is now sinking in the “SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION” of the last
80 Years brought to you again by the those “Little Republicans”!!
Give me a break !!! Better yet, give this Country a break and all you “Idiots” go back
to your plywood shacks in the “backwoods and read your “ADAM SMITH” and bone
up on your “Free Markets” [Flea Markets], yeah its free for the “Big Dogs” and the
rest of the Schnauzers “HAVE to PAY” !!!!!!