[Previous entry: "Must've been faking it"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "America: &#!* Yeah!"]

04/11/2005: "Bush to dismantle Amtrak"

The Bush budget for 2006 proposes ending federal support of Amtrak, the only US national passenger rail service. In fiscal 2005, the federal subsidy to Amtrak was $1.2 billion, which is what Bush spends in six days in Iraq. $1.2 billion to support Amtrak is far less than 1% of the 2006 Defense Department budget.
Eliminating federal support will force Amtrak into bankruptcy and will cause it to shut operations.

Amtrak provides intercity and cross-country service to more than 500 US destinations in 46 states on a 22,000-mile route system. 24 million passengers rode Amtrak this past year, an all-time high and ridership has soared on all routes, from the northeast corridor, to the west, midwest and more.

Amtrak President David Gunn called Bush's proposal "irresponsible and a surprising disappointment."

Why would George Bush propose to shut down Amtrak? A recent op-ed in Newsday claimed that the Bush administration has sold out the railroads to the “oil interests, airlines interests and the automotives interests.”

The Bush mantra is that Amtrak must become self-sufficient financially, just like the airlines and highways. Reality is that airlines and highways are supported by many billions annually of taxpayers’ dollars.

Another reality is no mass transportation system in the world survives without government subsidies. And why should it? Government is not business. Government supports its citizens with their own funds.

The White House itself predicts that without subsidies, “Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy, which would lead to elimination of inefficient operations….” Translation of Bush lingo….inefficient means not profitable enough.

Friends, the purpose of government is not to make a profit. It is to serve the people, not take and profit from the people.

“Bush’s message on this is atrocious. It doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s a fraud.” Said Dr. Vukan Vuchik, Professor of Transportation at University of Pennsylvania.

Why should Amtrak be saved?

- Cost-efficient - Subsidies for Amtrak since it began in 1971 are less than “loans” given to US airlines since 9/11.

- Energy-efficient – Amtrak uses just 54% of the energy per passenger mile that airlines consume.

- Loss of Amtrak would immobilize millions – Many smaller communities are poorly served, or not served at all, by other forms of public transportation. Many people…elderly, disabled, those with medical conditions…cannot fly, and need trains as a travel option.

- Amtrak is good for the environment – Trains create less pollution because they use less energy. Also, one rail line can carry the equivalent of 16 highway lanes, thus additionally reducing both gas usage and air pollutants.

Amtrak has about 25,000 employees, and many thousands of car builders and supply workers depend on their employers’ contracts with Amtrak. If the President has his way, all these workers will soon be unemployed.

What’s next? President Bush wants to push Amtrak into bankruptcy, and end its rail services. He proposes to set aside $360 million for a new train system to someday run only in the country’s northeast corridor.

Bush wants to “privatize” the rest of Amtrak by selling its assets, and let multiple corporations make profits as they see fit.

The leading House Democrat on transportation, Minnesota Rep. Jim Oberstar, predicts a “test of wills.” “This is serious” he said. “They really intend to eliminate Amtrak.”

Said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ),” They’re about to run Amtrak off a cliff…. We’re gonna fight it, and we’ll see who blinks first.”
-- from Deborah White, without permission, http://usliberals.about.com/od/environmentalconcerns/a/AmtrakBudget.htm