That is a big, if predicatable miss. I will say something though - I noticed some big cuts that I didn't expect, mainly the federal travel budget and the vehicle budget
Great - so that's what, 15-20% of the country?
More bluster - and no cuts in Republican's pet pigs - defense, agricultural subs, etc.
Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings
The east coast is very similar to Europe in density.
No cuts to defense? Absolute fail.
Nice start that they're at least making an effort. But at the end of the day, the Senate and President have to agree.
Huge government funded road and airport projects obliterated the competitiveness of private passenger rail in the 30s through the 60s. Eventually this forced the creation of Amtrak lest all the railroads who were made to continue revenue draining passenger services go belly up.
Amtrak, while mismanaged internally and externally, has faced the basically impossible job of being competitive in the same environment. Declaring a system inefficient when it has literally been forced to be so isn't that damming of a complaint.
The problem with Amtrak is that they run too many long distance services which will never be profitable. Trains from NY to Chicago are retarded, that's what airplanes are for. What they SHOULD be doing is concentrating on areas like the Northeast Corridor. Hell, Acela already makes a profit and that's despite the godawful infrastructure it runs on.
Scattering money throughout the country for various rail projects is stupid, but real high speed rail between Boston and DC would make a lot of sense. Yes, it'll require gov't subsidies for the infrastructure but what are the alternatives? The FAA is looking at spending billions just to upgrade air traffic control in the New York area. Spend the money on upgrading the NE Corridor instead. Rail advocates need to stop making themselves look stupid though by advocating boondoggle projects like $50 billion high speed lines in California. Invest money where rail has proven itself to be a good choice, and let the airlines have the business in less densely populated areas.
No cuts to defense? Absolute fail.
The biggest change we need to make is re balancing power of capital. That includes having a infrastructure which supports any person that wants to work to be able to work and thus pay taxes instead of consume them. You can't do that with off shoring production of what we consume. This benefits the tipsy top and put the rest of us in debt. You can also strengthen SBA loan programs, reduce interest rates so bankers don't get so much spread on their virtually free money from the FED. etc. Taxes themselves are just a bandaid on a cut off leg and fix nothing.
Indeed
Really? In 2009 the US spent 676 billion on Medicare/Medicaid and another 678 on Social Security 1354 billion. According to costofwar.com the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined since 2001 have cost 1140 billion. Now if we break this down Medicare/Medicaide/Social Secuirty cost us, on average, 13x more per year than the wars do.
While I do agree that the wars have been a waste I think the run away spending on MMS is worse
Medicare, Medicaid, and SS provide services to millions of Americans. The wars are worse than burning the money in a fire pit. Value for the money is heavily tilted towards social services, despite the waste inherent in any large org.
It wasn't about 'value' it was about things that are causing a 'mess'. To say that the wars - which have cost a total of 1.1 trillion - is the main reason we are dealing with a 14 trillion dollar deficit, or multi trillion dollar deficit increases per year is absurd.
The problem with Amtrak is that they run too many long distance services which will never be profitable. Trains from NY to Chicago are retarded, that's what airplanes are for. What they SHOULD be doing is concentrating on areas like the Northeast Corridor. Hell, Acela already makes a profit and that's despite the godawful infrastructure it runs on.
Scattering money throughout the country for various rail projects is stupid, but real high speed rail between Boston and DC would make a lot of sense. Yes, it'll require gov't subsidies for the infrastructure but what are the alternatives? The FAA is looking at spending billions just to upgrade air traffic control in the New York area. Spend the money on upgrading the NE Corridor instead. Rail advocates need to stop making themselves look stupid though by advocating boondoggle projects like $50 billion high speed lines in California. Invest money where rail has proven itself to be a good choice, and let the airlines have the business in less densely populated areas.
I bet half the reason those long-distance lines still run is because Congressmen threaten to cut funding if they don't keep them alive.
The FAA spending is still needed regardless. Even if you got rid of the short-haul flights, you'd still have the busy air corridor in the country.
As for upgrading the NE corridor: to put true HSR, the proposal put forth by Amtrak has a price tag of ~$117 billion over 25 years. A large chunk being spent on building new track and acquiring new right of ways (since you need straighter tracks to keep up speeds). With a price tag like that, everyone balks. Who knew that capital improvement projects in densely populated areas would cost a lot of money?
Political pressure has forced Amtrak to keep running the long haul routes even though they loose money. A good example of the no-win scenario they are in when it comes to becoming a profitable service.
The CA HSR line will be heavily used. Anything is better than flying out of LAX and into SFO or vice-versa as part of a regular travel pattern or taking to the roads. The CA HSR is also the only true HSR project that has a chance of coming to fruition. Once people see what these can do there will be a lot more interest in further systems in the areas that merit them (NEC and Chicago hub).
No cuts to defense? Absolute fail.
really? Is Highway 5 that crowded? Are there not enough planes from the 3 airports in the Bay Area and those in Southern California? What about all those "HSR" stops in every central valley towns like Borden and Corcoran which will make the local NYC metro trains feel like the Concord?
4.3 billion dollars to build TRACKS only ... no stations and no trains for 54 miles.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-12-...ed-rail-authority-800-mile-system-trains-roll
79.6 million dollars per mile on the easiest (politically) and geographical (flat) region. Multiple that by going into places WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE and the price tag is through the moon. California is not the East Coast. People do not live on top of each other NOR have jobs that requires them to commute to and from Sacramento/SF/Bay Area to Southern California every day. Who is going to ride this thing if it ever gets built and how much do you really think the government will need to subsidize this thing if it ever gets built? They are thinking about shutting down CalTrain because not enough people are riding it and this goes only from the South Bay to SF.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/21/BA0M1HC6NN.DTL
HSR from Northern California to Southern California is a complete waste of money when California is in so much debt.
Oh let's also throw in some potential corruption by those in charge of this mess.
Calif. bullet train leaders under ethics probe
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/107342128.html
Total travel times for car and plane will be significantly longer than HSR. Do you seriously think that a sub 3 hour trip from LA to SF (downtown no less, so no 30 min BART ride or idling in a cab on the Bay Bridge) won't be of interest to anyone?
Caltrain is in trouble because "has no dedicated source of operating funds - no state or federal assistance, no sales or property tax revenue", not because nobody rides it.
There will be no stops in Borden or Corcoran. The last round of federal dollars given to CA for the project required them to be spent in the Central Valley and to be done first. That's why the first segment is being built between Borden and Corcoran.
There is a huge difference between being "of interest to anyone" and being "of interest to enough to justify the investment". Plenty of people had interest in pets.com but it didn't work out to well from an investment standpoint.
A service that trounces travel times offered by air and car won't be attractive to a state that will add 10M people over the next 20 years?
On the chopping block?! They've been butchered, grilled, eaten, and shit out, already. They were already in Asian and South American water treatment plants by the time this century began.Energy, infrastructure, and education - three keys to Americas prosperity and competitiveness for the remainder of the century are on the chopping block.
Shortsighted? Yeah a little bit.
Remember too, that cuts mean more unemployment. This is a tough road to go down and one that needs to be thought out to some degree.
Don't misunderstand and think I'm condoning business as usual.
Making an effort? Please. Please! Funding wars from 2000-2008 with tax cuts and STILL not addressing that BIG problem isn't making an effort. It's the same shit, different decade.
A service that trounces travel times offered by air and car won't be attractive to a state that will add 10M people over the next 20 years?
:thumbsup: this x100
More than anything else it has been unsanctioned military spending that has got us into the mess we are in. We don't have a chance of ever balancing the budget as long as we continue throwing trillions away that we never had to begin with fighting unwinable and unjust wars.