1.5 billion for Amtrak in stimulus with daily service mandate (Passed in Congress)

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

tricia

Conductor
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
1,243
Location
Spring Creek, NC
Manchin has ludicrous power. He doesn't seem to understand which side his bread is buttered on, though. His constituents support $15/hr minimum wage and have no interest at all in maintaining the filibuster. But he's the one who's preventing the Democrats from overruling the parlimentarian (something VP Hubert Humphrey apparently did routinely).
I'm pretty sure that the only "constituents" Manchin cares about are his funders.

Years ago, I watched him lie to a man who was staging a sit-in outside his office because his granddaughter was sick from attending an elementary school adjacent to a large coal processing plant. Manchin must have had his empathy cauterized before running for office.

End rant. Back to the thread's actual topic.
 

IndyLions

OBS Chief
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
653
Location
Brownsburg IN
What do private jets get in subsidy?
I doubt there are any direct subsidies to private jets.

However, the poster could have been talking about subsidies to private aviation. Yes, private aircraft pay landing fees etc. at the airports that they use. However – not all small airports make enough in landing fees to pay for their existence. Therefore, a lot of airports would go under without federal subsidy. Therefore, the private jets would have a lot fewer places to land. Not being able to land in as many places, and having to use less convenient airports instead – would take a lot of value out of owning a private jet.

That being said – do I support subsidizing private aviation via small airports? Yep.
 

PaTrainFan

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
May 1, 2017
Messages
268
Location
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Manchin has ludicrous power. He doesn't seem to understand which side his bread is buttered on, though. His constituents support $15/hr minimum wage and have no interest at all in maintaining the filibuster. But he's the one who's preventing the Democrats from overruling the parlimentarian (something VP Hubert Humphrey apparently did routinely).
The Senate Democrats caved and are taking the minimum wage out of the stimulus bill. Bad news for low wage workers, but this at least enhances that odds of the bill being approved.
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
27,551
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
The Senate Democrats caved and are taking the minimum wage out of the stimulus bill. Bad news for low wage workers, but this at least enhances that odds of the bill being approved.
Given the almost non-viable razor thin majority with the help of the VP that Democrats have in the Senate this was a completely predictable outcome. I suspected all along that the $15/hr was going nowhere given the composition of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

Also, at least in my book changing the minimum wage is not really something one should be doing in a budget reconciliation, but I guess the entire country is well passed the point where anyone is bothering with discussing what is or is not proper anymore :(

They could of course also take a potentially disastrous course and refuse to pass the bill without the $15, but that would be a rather spectacular exercise in cutting ones nose to spite ones face unfortunately.

What I find fascinating is that some people are going into this with expectations that are commensurate with the Democrats already having a 2/3rd majority in the Senate.
 

Willbridge

OBS Chief
AU Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
828
Location
Denver
I doubt there are any direct subsidies to private jets.

However, the poster could have been talking about subsidies to private aviation. Yes, private aircraft pay landing fees etc. at the airports that they use. However – not all small airports make enough in landing fees to pay for their existence. Therefore, a lot of airports would go under without federal subsidy. Therefore, the private jets would have a lot fewer places to land. Not being able to land in as many places, and having to use less convenient airports instead – would take a lot of value out of owning a private jet.

That being said – do I support subsidizing private aviation via small airports? Yep.
Subsidies to general aviation may have changed since my ODOT days but likely not. Here's how it worked: the state aviation program is financed by taxes on aviation fuel and property. BUT, if your plane was licensed in Oregon, the fee went to the aviation program and your plane was now exempt from ad valorem taxation (same as autos, trucks, buses and boats). Most of the state aviation revenue comes from commercial air carriers; most of the expenditures benefit general aviation. This started fairly equitably when commercial air service was provided at many small cities and aviation fans dreamed of the "all up" world where there would be even more air served cities.
 

Acela150

Conductor
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
8,866
Location
In a Sea of Foam
As predicted the GOP is not as pro Amtrak as they were pre Biden. Viciously going after Amtrak in CoVid bill. Thankfully there’s a few level headed members of the GOP in the Senate and a slim Democratic majority. For the rest of the GOP that wants to keep our infrastructure in the Stone Age “aka 3rd world“ I hope they get voted out in 2 years to put it mildly. Infrastructure puts people to work.

“Rep. Ben Cline added the Amtrak spending to his list of "the most egregious provisions unrelated to COVID" in the stimulus bill.”

I've said it recently, and I believe that it was in this thread. Why the GOP goes after things like Amtrak when it's such a miniscule part of the budget and in this case, stimulus package is beyond me. I'm sure they'd like the result if their wasn't a stimulus package for Amtrak. Which a guess says would cost taxpayers billions more than if there was no stimulus package for them.

And I'm sure that Rep. Cline's constituents appreciate his attempts to remove the service from his district. *eye rolls*
 

neroden

Conductor
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
8,085
Location
Ithaca, NY
I'm pretty sure that the only "constituents" Manchin cares about are his funders.

Years ago, I watched him lie to a man who was staging a sit-in outside his office because his granddaughter was sick from attending an elementary school adjacent to a large coal processing plant. Manchin must have had his empathy cauterized before running for office.

End rant. Back to the thread's actual topic.
Wow. If Manchin's like that, then we should be able to work out his price. Most members of Congress who are like that are *cheap*. Buy him off to get rid of the filibuster. If the filibuster is removed, Manchin gets even *more* power than he has now, so even if he's just power-hungry, he should want that. The only thing the filibuster gains him is the ability to hide and pretend that he supports bills he opposes, and that shouldn't be worth that much to him. $50K? $100K?
 

MARC Rider

Conductor
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
2,877
Location
Baltimore. MD
Wow. If Manchin's like that, then we should be able to work out his price. Most members of Congress who are like that are *cheap*. Buy him off to get rid of the filibuster. If the filibuster is removed, Manchin gets even *more* power than he has now, so even if he's just power-hungry, he should want that. The only thing the filibuster gains him is the ability to hide and pretend that he supports bills he opposes, and that shouldn't be worth that much to him. $50K? $100K?
I'm not sure that this is all Manchin's doing. I think that a lot of people in the Democratic leadership, even some who may approve of getting rid of the filibuster in concept, are a little antsy about doing it under the current circumstances, i.e. a razor-thin Democratic majority in both houses. The 2022 elections aren't that far off, and there's a good chance the Republicans could take one or more of the houses of Congress. If the Democrats have already set a precedent for eliminating the filibuster, imagine what sort of mischief the Republicans could do if they got back into control. We've seen what they did with judges, and how the Supreme Court has changed. Maybe after the 2022 elections, if the Democrats win it with larger majorities than they have now, there might be more interest in doing it.

In the short term for Amtrak funding, it probably doesn't matter, as there are the votes for that in this current bill, whatever posturing the opponents are doing on the media. And people working to increase the minimum wage can continue to work through the states, as I recall that minimum wages have gone up in some through referendums.
 

AmtrakBlue

Conductor
Gathering Team Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
12,194
Location
Delaware
Two transportation projects have been removed from the bill. The BART extension and a bridge in NYS.

 

Ziv

OBS Chief
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
771
I drove a 1981 Toyota Tercel from Miami to San Diego back in 1989 and it nearly killed me it was so boring. Back then there was almost no traffic. My car didn't have a cassette player and there was no good radio station most of the time. I was so bored I tried to see how many miles I could go without touching the steering wheel. I was leaning left and right to keep the car in the lane. I think I got to 40 miles without touching the wheel. The worst part was that if I went faster than 62 mph the car started to scream like it was going to fly apart. And 62 mph on I-10 felt like I could get out and run alongside the car.
Good times. LOL!

I've driven I-10 from San Antonio to Fort Stockton, and later between Fort Stockton and Van Horn. Once you get west of Junction, there is literally nothing around along the road, but I was amazed at the amount of traffic, most of which I suppose was headed for El Paso. The trucks may have been headed to points beyond El Paso, too. The speed limit also jumps from 75 mph to 80 mph.
 

Amtrakfflyer

OBS Chief
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
541
Don’t be surprised if the Dems negotiate with themselves and Amtrak’s money gets slashed with the pretense of being made up in another bill. They just don’t know how to govern with a strong hand. All the cuts and negotiations we have seen with unemployment yesterday and today have been the Dems negotiating against themselves.

What really scares me and may be the reason for the above is Joe Manchen. He’s from what is arguably the poorest, least well off State and yet he is demanding cuts to aid/unemployment and against a true minimum wage increase. He’s no more a Dem than Lieberman was.

I don’t think it’s a matter of if but when he switches parties and becomes a “R” sinking Biden’s first 2 years (at least) and any hope of infrastructure stimulus. I’m sure McConnell and corporate interests are willing to give him whatever he wants to make the switch. Time will tell my bet sooner then later unfortunately.
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
27,551
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
27,551
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
Touché. I hope it all stays in there and we have a robust meaningful infrastructure bill soon.
The Infrastructure Bill is a different one from the current Bill. I suspect it will face much higher hurdles in the Senate since it will be subject to 60 votes. There is no way that anyone with a straight face can claim that one to be a budget reconciliation. It will require some amount of bi-partisan support, and will thus have to reflect the desires of those from across party lines that are voting for it to a requisite extent to get them to vote that way.

One needs to remember that Democrats barely have a majority, and people need to moderate their expectations, specially on money bills, based on that reality
 

PaTrainFan

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
May 1, 2017
Messages
268
Location
Pittsburgh, Pa.
The Infrastructure Bill is a different one from the current Bill. I suspect it will face much higher hurdles in the Senate since it will be subject to 60 votes. There is no way that anyone with a straight face can claim that one to be a budget reconciliation. It will require some amount of bi-partisan support, and will thus have to reflect the desires of those from across party lines that are voting for it to a requisite extent to get them to vote that way.

One needs to remember that Democrats barely have a majority, and people need to moderate their expectations, specially on money bills, based on that reality
Infrastructure is something everyone likes to talk about but nobody can agree on the terms. The goals may be bipartisan, paying for it will never be. Love the idea of it; cyncal about the execution. Trump couldn't get it done when he had firm control of both houses.
 

Bob Dylan

Conductor
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
22,205
Location
Austin Texas
Senate Democrats have just negotiated with themselves an additional $200 million for Amtrak, bumping up the total to $1.7 billion.

But they did kill the Minimum Wage increase and are keeping the Weekly Unemployment Weekly Amount @ $300 since $10 an hour is so much itll make lazy people stay home instead of working! ( Sarcasm intended!)
 

Amtrakfflyer

OBS Chief
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
541
4 anti Amtrak amendments tonight and tomorrow, 2 of which zero out Amtrak funding according to RPA. Now it gets interesting. Will Dems stay united on all 4. I’m honestly not sure.

Also not sure difference between the two zero funding amendments and why they aren’t combined into one. That’s all the info RPA gave out tonight.


  • Hagerty #893 – Strikes all Amtrak funding.
  • Johnson #1102 – Cuts Northeast Corridor funding from $970,388,160 to $742,500,500
  • Johnson # 1003 – Cuts National Network funding from $729,611,840 to $607,500,000.
  • Lee #1132 – Strikes all Amtrak funding
 
Last edited:

Ryan

Conductor
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
17,158
Location
OTN
Trump couldn't get it done when he had firm control of both houses.
Let's be honest, Trump's inability to do something has no bearing on how hard it is.

Also not sure difference between the two zero funding amendments and why they aren’t combined into one.
The idea is to slow things down as much as possible, not actually do anything useful (see also: reading the entire bill aloud to an empty chamber).
 
Top