by Nancy Solomon, NPR
Morning Edition, January 23, 2007 · Amtrak’s Washington to Boston routes are increasingly popular, but need maintenance. Some want Amtrak to spend more on heavily traveled routes and less to subsidize service in rural parts of the country.
This is really a case of self absorbed regional bias coupled to an imbalance of influence considering the Northeast Corridor connects “decision making” Washington with the aforementioned institution which authored the study. Add into this scenario, the unequal distribution of profits generated by The Northeast Corridor into exclusively urban routes at the expense of rural ones, at the advice of a urban institute has a bad case of flat wheels in the face of political realities. Amtrak is a nationally based quasi public organization dependant on national state based political support, urban and rural alike. Montana, Nebraska, Dakotas et all, gleefully subsidizing Boston or Chicago routes while having no rail service? Is there something wrong with this conceptual model? These are experts? Ugh…this is a good example of trying to fit ten pounds into a one pound bag or better, a round peg into a square hole. The whole issue of organizing transportation subsidies on a national basis is neatly, but ineffectively sidestepped. How about our federal tax dollars only being spent in the state in which they are collected…duh…
That Amtrak Black Hole the NEC needs 30 Billion Dollars to get it into A-Shape from Boston to D.C.
I totally agree. Living in here New York City, I hate seeing my taxes being spent on homeland security in states where terrorist will probably never strike… Montana, Nebraska and the Dakotas come quickly to mind. I wish that money would just stay here where attacking this city is probably high on their target list. I also don’t appreciate my taxes going to pay for airport and highways in states and cities that i will probably never visit in this life time. Our federal tax dollars only being spent in the state in which they are collected…duh…
Okay enough sarcasm, the federal goverment collects taxes and spends it for the benefit of the entire nation. Whether it ben
From the Christian Science Monitor:
"Since Congress first dispensed money after 9/11 to help local officials prepare for future acts of terrorism, New Yorkers have been rankled by the notion that people in rural states like Wyoming get almost twice as much per capita as they do. It’s a feeling based not only on having experienced 9/11 firsthand, but also in knowing that New York remains a top target.
This week, Congress might do something to change that. A House-Senate conference committee will decide how much risk should factor into the decision about how to distribute homeland security money. Big, vulnerable states like New York are in favor of a more risk-based formula, but they’re getting a fight from lawmakers in small states, who contend they also have vulnerabilities and just as much right to protect themselves.
Funny you list keeping things in state as a way to be fair, because right now in Virginia, Fairfax County is complaining because the governor wants to reallocate state spending on police/criminal justice based on crime rate. Fairfax County which has a very large population and a low crime rate is complaining that Gov. Kaine is doing this to benefit Richmond, which has a smaller population and a high crime rate (Gov. Kaine was formerly Mayor of Richmond). My thought is duh, of course, you want to allocate police funding towards high crime areas because that is where police are most needed. Similarly, why shouldn’t homeland security funds be allocated towards likely targets - foreign terrorists are likely to target symbolic targets - so places like Washington, DC, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago etc. are obvious potential targets due to their importance as government centers, historic importance to America, or economic power - but less populous states still have potential targets that would have symbolic value - such as Mt Rushmore in South Dakota. However, some smaller cities and even large cities would lose out, because they lack the symbolic targets being more of local than national importance (not that they should have no homeland security funding, but the funding should be more focused towards domestic threats like Timothy McVeigh or local nuts than international terrorists who are unlikely to strike them - thus many smaller cities would likely be better served with general law enforcement funds which can also be used to prepare for homeland security events). Also homeland security incorporates FEMA so its funds also go to places with natural disasters - so that can skew funding.
Why not allocate transportation funds similarly towards the area with the greatest need? The reason is that unlike police and homeland security, transportation in the a
Where’s Solomon when you need him?
If terrorists blow up Mt. Rushmore, the country loses a national symbol. If terrorists fly another plane into another skyscraper, hundreds or thousands of people get killed.
Hmmm… I wonder where the money should be spent… [X-)]
Put me firmly in the “greatest need” camp!
NJ is net “exporter” of highway trust fund dollars. They have 8 million people and only a couple hundred miles of interstate highway. NJ collects quite a bit more in Fed Highway tax than they get back. But, I think this is very fair. New Jersians, like just about everybody else in the US, consume west coast produce. Efficient movement of produce to market depends on a national network of highways, built and maintained to a uniform standard. Without New Jersians “cross subsidizing” the Dakotas, Montana and New Mexico, for example, those states might just as well say “The heck with it. Those roads cost us a lot more than our citizens get out of it. We’re opting out of the Interstate system”. And, the cost for fresh veggies in Bergen county skyrockets.
Tranportation of all kinds “grease the wheels of commerce”. Fed subsidy of transportation is a net plus for us all, provided it’s spent according to need and not source.
and new jerseyans, like everyone else, subsidize west coast farmer’s irrigation. The NEChas been pilfered for decades to prop up service elsewhere. I guess it’s a good illustration of what happens when politics trumps business decisions.
Put your money where your urges are!