RNC Convention Platform Plank addressing Amtrak

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 17, 2015
Messages
2,807
I notice that the Republican platform calls for an end to all federal funding for Amtrak,and an end to all high speed rail. This seems to be contrary to Trump's call for spending to improve all forms of infrastructure. Now, none of us know who the public will elect for our next President, also the Democrat platform has not been finalized. but just seeing this plank to me is a concern. A friend told me that the platforms seem to be ignored after the election, but to add a plank just about Amtrak with so many other major issues to me is an issue.
 
Interesting. I was reading an article last night about platform planks. Although, as you state they may be mostly ignored, the article argues that the platform development does provide a window into the future of the party: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-platforms-are-a-window-into-the-future-of-the-parties/. This sort of plank, defunding of Amtrak, is in-line with other similar anti-federalist positions (e.g., defunding of the national park system, etc.). Obviously, there are many supporters of passenger rail and HSR within the GOP, but there are many more (thinking of Rep. Mica) who are vociferously opposed.
 
I sincerely doubt that a Republican platform that calls for an end to Amtrak funding will ever be implemented. There are enough Senators and Congress people that would never vote for this. It cannot possibly happen as it would create a transportation chaos. What could happen is a push to sell off Amtrak routes to the freight railroads or to contract the service out. There has been little interest from the private sector, for if there was, you can bet that they would be running more passenger trains. While Amtrak will continue, it is difficult to determine what it will be like in 5 years. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are in a close election and have both expressed support for the service. That's a positive sign but only time will tell how things will change.
 
This has been fairly typical Republican Party orthodoxy for some time, to call for an end to federal rail and transit funding (you know, rail/transit socialism bad, road socialism good, or something). And, generally, Republicans are more hostile to rail and transit funding, both at federal and at state/local levels. But there are certainly some pro-rail/transit Republicans.

While I haven't seen (or looked for, to be honest) specific Democratic Party platforms positions regarding rail and transit, typically they have called for increased funding - whether they have actually delivered on it, though...
 
As a general rule of thumb, no one pays the slightess bit of attention to Party Platforms after the National Conventions.

Platform planks are brought from the various states and territories by the most zealous of Party Members and are usually mostly boilerplate BS.

The true believers feel these things in their hearts and guts, but most intellegent people don't pay any attention at all to these planks or laugh at them to be honest!
 
Interesting. I was reading an article last night about platform planks. Although, as you state they may be mostly ignored, the article argues that the platform development does provide a window into the future of the party: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-platforms-are-a-window-into-the-future-of-the-parties/. This sort of plank, defunding of Amtrak, is in-line with other similar anti-federalist positions (e.g., defunding of the national park system, etc.). Obviously, there are many supporters of passenger rail and HSR within the GOP, but there are many more (thinking of Rep. Mica) who are vociferously opposed.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/16/gop-platform-proposes-to-get-rid-of-national-parks/

Snopes suggests that the GOP is NOT supporting defunding of the national park system.
 
Interesting. I was reading an article last night about platform planks. Although, as you state they may be mostly ignored, the article argues that the platform development does provide a window into the future of the party: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-platforms-are-a-window-into-the-future-of-the-parties/. This sort of plank, defunding of Amtrak, is in-line with other similar anti-federalist positions (e.g., defunding of the national park system, etc.). Obviously, there are many supporters of passenger rail and HSR within the GOP, but there are many more (thinking of Rep. Mica) who are vociferously opposed.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/16/gop-platform-proposes-to-get-rid-of-national-parks/
Snopes suggests that the GOP is NOT supporting defunding of the national park system.
I just finished reading the Republican Platform. Nowhere does it say that National parks are excluded. The language is vague and under its umbrella anything is fair game. Of course that does not mean that something will happen. But certainly the possibility is left open and not explicitly excluded. So Snopes notwithstanding, it is fair to warn folks that it is a possibility that falls within the scope of the language in the final Platform. While GOP may not be explicitly supporting defunding, it is also not explicitly opposing such either.

BTW, here is the exact language on Amtrak:

Amtrak is an extremely expensive railroad for the American taxpayers, who must subsidize every ticket. The federal government should allow private ventures to provide passenger service in the northeast corridor. The same holds true with regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country. We reaffirm our intention to end federal support for boondoggles like California’s high-speed train to nowhere.
Apparently the fact that every mile driven on American roads and every ticket bought on airlines are also subsidized indirectly seem to not occur to these nimrods. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Party platforms are generally ignored after the convention. The GOP's platform represents the far-right, anti-government wing of the party. Defunding Amtrak is a long time dream of many Republicans. Remember St. Ronnie and Bush Jr. both proposed Amtrak funding as "0." As far as Trump is concerned, who knows what he has in mind. He talks a lot, but never says anything specific. A Hillary win will ensure Amtrak continues, but funding still may remain at subsistence levels.

In any case, Amtrak is far down the list of priorities of both candidates and their campaigns.
 
Interesting. I was reading an article last night about platform planks. Although, as you state they may be mostly ignored, the article argues that the platform development does provide a window into the future of the party: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-platforms-are-a-window-into-the-future-of-the-parties/. This sort of plank, defunding of Amtrak, is in-line with other similar anti-federalist positions (e.g., defunding of the national park system, etc.). Obviously, there are many supporters of passenger rail and HSR within the GOP, but there are many more (thinking of Rep. Mica) who are vociferously opposed.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/16/gop-platform-proposes-to-get-rid-of-national-parks/
Snopes suggests that the GOP is NOT supporting defunding of the national park system.
I just finished reading the Republican Platform. Nowhere does it say that National parks are excluded. The language is vague and under its umbrella anything is fair game. Of course that does not mean that something will happen. But certainly the possibility is left open and not explicitly excluded. So Snopes notwithstanding, it is fair to warn folks that it is a possibility that falls within the scope of the language in the final Platform. While GOP may not be explicitly supporting defunding, it is also not explicitly opposing such either.

BTW, here is the exact language on Amtrak:

Amtrak is an extremely expensive railroad for the American taxpayers, who must subsidize every ticket. The federal government should allow private ventures to provide passenger service in the northeast corridor. The same holds true with regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country. We reaffirm our intention to end federal support for boondoggles like California’s high-speed train to nowhere.
Apparently the fact that every mile driven on American roads and every ticket bought on airlines are also subsidized indirectly seem to not occur to these nimrods. :)
Okay, I never said that defunding the park system is part of the platform. However, getting rid of the park system has been part of the GOP agenda. And, Snopes is wrong about this. Here is just one example of many in the news over the past year: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2016/04/11/135044/the-rise-to-power-of-the-congressional-anti-parks-caucus/
 
You do realize that my post was in support of the conjecture that the National Park System is under threat in the Republican Platform as it is worded. What snopes thinks does not really matter. It was a pretty lame piece of nonsense from Snopes on this anyway parsing words carefully with no concern for the overall context IMHO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently the fact that every mile driven on American roads and every ticket bought on airlines are also subsidized indirectly seem to not occur to these nimrods. :)
Over the years, I have stayed out of this argument when it has been brought up here, but now I will get into it. And I'm sure I will not be popular.

The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to build intercity highways, or as they were called then, "post roads." (Article I, Section 8.) Therefore, spending money to build and maintain intercity highways is constitutional. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to operate transportation companies. Therefore spending money to operate a railroad is unconstitutional. (Amendment X.)

Railroads and airplanes did not exist when the Constitution was written, or course, but coaches and ships did, and the Constitution does not give Congress the power to operate stagecoach lines and merchant maritime fleets.

What were the Framers trying to accomplish by granting Congress the power to build intercity roads? They were trying to build an infrastructure that would knit the states together and allow commerce and communication among them. (It is worth noting that intrastate infrastructure projects like the Erie Canal came to the Federal government for funding and were told to get lost, because Congress could not spend money on things that only benefitted one state.) If they were writing the Constitution at a time when railroads and airplanes existed, the Framers might have included things like airports and intercity railroad rights-of-way as things Congress could build, because such things are nodes and links of a network, and building such a network helps tie the country together. But they would not have given Congress the power to operate railroads and airlines.

Remember, when in the 1860s the US government wanted a transcontinental railroad to tie the new Pacific coast states to the rest of the Union, they did not create a federal railroad -- they did not have the power, so that would have been illegal -- but instead paid companies to build it and then left those companies to operate it.

It is no coincidence that the unconstitutional Amtrak was created by the most "progressive" president of the last 50 years, Richard Nixon.
 
Rubber tired vehicles had also not been invented back then. So road building is really sanctioned only for horse drawn carriages on wood wheels. :)

The Constitution really does not say anything about construction and maintenance of metaled roads for gasoline and diesel powered vehicles either. And if it does, then what is to say that it does not allow building and maintenance of other means of transportation that knits the nation together. Indeed land grants to railways took place precisely to knit the whole country together, which the railways did admirably well, and some even managed to make good use of the granted land while others failed after frittering away the land. The core goal of "knitting the nation together" is what was to be fulfilled by "roads" as the means for doing so. The fact that some want to interpret the word "roads" narrowly to suit just their purpose of things that allow their gasoline powered cars to run on and nothing else, is just plain disingenuous.
 
Amtrak could be profitable if run the same way as the bus companies on the interstates. Have the government built high speed rail tracks across the country, maintain them, and allow Amtrak to use them as much as they want, rent free. Amtrak could be run like an actual business and be successful. The costs of equipment and operation would be offset by the revenues, and if the trains are full they could afford to buy more equipment and increase revenue. The problem now is without this type of support Amtrak will continue to run at a deficit and nobody will invest in them.
 
Amtrak could be profitable if run the same way as the bus companies on the interstates. Have the government built high speed rail tracks across the country, maintain them, and allow Amtrak to use them as much as they want, rent free. Amtrak could be run like an actual business and be successful. The costs of equipment and operation would be offset by the revenues, and if the trains are full they could afford to buy more equipment and increase revenue. The problem now is without this type of support Amtrak will continue to run at a deficit and nobody will invest in them.
Would it be cheaper to buy some tracks from the freight companies?

Agreed Amtrak would be way better if Amtrak/states owned the tracks.
 
Apparently the fact that every mile driven on American roads and every ticket bought on airlines are also subsidized indirectly seem to not occur to these nimrods. :)
Over the years, I have stayed out of this argument when it has been brought up here, but now I will get into it. And I'm sure I will not be popular.

The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to build intercity highways, or as they were called then, "post roads." (Article I, Section 8.) Therefore, spending money to build and maintain intercity highways is constitutional. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to operate transportation companies. Therefore spending money to operate a railroad is unconstitutional. (Amendment X.)

...

What were the Framers trying to accomplish by granting Congress the power to build intercity roads? They were trying to build an infrastructure that would knit the states together and allow commerce and communication among them. (It is worth noting that intrastate infrastructure projects like the Erie Canal came to the Federal government for funding and were told to get lost, because Congress could not spend money on things that only benefitted one state.
Explain further how you find a difference between Interstate Highways and trains? They both carry containers, and other freight along with passengers. They are both covered by "The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

One of your points is that the Eire Canal was going to benefit one state only. Funny how it turned out to benefit every Great Lakes state from Minnesota on down. It was opposed, not by religiously political types who thought that the Constitution, like the Bible, had been handed down back in the day as the law for everything in the future.

Federal funding for the Erie Canal was opposed by, among others, representatives from Philadelphia and Baltimore, who feared competition in trade with the Ohio Valley. We see that stuff today, with powerful corporations trying to bend the government to help them and hurt their competitors.

Funny how folks who want to overturn almost a century's settled law on the sweep of the Commerce Clause often call themselves 'Conservatives". How can it be conservative to wish for activist judges to overturn Supreme Court decisions going back to before we were born?
 
Amtrak could be profitable if run the same way as the bus companies on the interstates. Have the government built high speed rail tracks across the country, maintain them, and allow Amtrak to use them as much as they want, rent free. Amtrak could be run like an actual business and be successful. The costs of equipment and operation would be offset by the revenues, and if the trains are full they could afford to buy more equipment and increase revenue. The problem now is without this type of support Amtrak will continue to run at a deficit and nobody will invest in them.
Would it be cheaper to buy some tracks from the freight companies?

Agreed Amtrak would be way better if Amtrak/states owned the tracks.
I agree, the cheapest way is probably to buy the existing freight tracks and electrify them, especially in cities. In some areas grade separation and track straightening will be necessary. Then the freight companies can use the money from selling current tracks to build tracks in rural areas, whereas passenger rail needs access to the downtowns of cities.
 
Apparently the fact that every mile driven on American roads and every ticket bought on airlines are also subsidized indirectly seem to not occur to these nimrods. :)
Over the years, I have stayed out of this argument when it has been brought up here, but now I will get into it. And I'm sure I will not be popular.

The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to build intercity highways, or as they were called then, "post roads." (Article I, Section 8.) Therefore, spending money to build and maintain intercity highways is constitutional. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to operate transportation companies. Therefore spending money to operate a railroad is unconstitutional. (Amendment X.)

Railroads and airplanes did not exist when the Constitution was written, or course, but coaches and ships did, and the Constitution does not give Congress the power to operate stagecoach lines and merchant maritime fleets.

What were the Framers trying to accomplish by granting Congress the power to build intercity roads? They were trying to build an infrastructure that would knit the states together and allow commerce and communication among them. (It is worth noting that intrastate infrastructure projects like the Erie Canal came to the Federal government for funding and were told to get lost, because Congress could not spend money on things that only benefitted one state.) If they were writing the Constitution at a time when railroads and airplanes existed, the Framers might have included things like airports and intercity railroad rights-of-way as things Congress could build, because such things are nodes and links of a network, and building such a network helps tie the country together. But they would not have given Congress the power to operate railroads and airlines.

Remember, when in the 1860s the US government wanted a transcontinental railroad to tie the new Pacific coast states to the rest of the Union, they did not create a federal railroad -- they did not have the power, so that would have been illegal -- but instead paid companies to build it and then left those companies to operate it.

It is no coincidence that the unconstitutional Amtrak was created by the most "progressive" president of the last 50 years, Richard Nixon.
That is an impractically narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and not supported in practice nor by judicial review. As you note, "modern" railroads did not yet exist in the nation; On what basis do you conclude the framers of the Constitution intended only one type of "road" be within the bounds of federal legislation?
 
Amtrak could be profitable if run the same way as the bus companies on the interstates. Have the government built high speed rail tracks across the country, maintain them, and allow Amtrak to use them as much as they want, rent free. Amtrak could be run like an actual business and be successful. The costs of equipment and operation would be offset by the revenues, and if the trains are full they could afford to buy more equipment and increase revenue. The problem now is without this type of support Amtrak will continue to run at a deficit and nobody will invest in them.
Would it be cheaper to buy some tracks from the freight companies?

Agreed Amtrak would be way better if Amtrak/states owned the tracks.
I agree, the cheapest way is probably to buy the existing freight tracks and electrify them, especially in cities. In some areas grade separation and track straightening will be necessary. Then the freight companies can use the money from selling current tracks to build tracks in rural areas, whereas passenger rail needs access to the downtowns of cities.
There are two reasons I can think of off the top of my head why this would be a bad idea, first, the tracks are very expensive and this country doesn't have the density needed in most areas to support frequent passenger trains, and second the freight railroads still need to access the urban areas as that is where most of their customers are located.
 
One of the central tenets of the Whig party, the precursor to the Republican party, was its support for federal support of "internal improvements" like canals and railroads, what we would now call infrastructure. Its platform was in direct opposition to the Jacksonian Democrats, who felt that such projects should be paid for on the state and local level.

So this argument had, by 1850, moved beyond arguments regarding the Constitution and into the political arena. There were no successful attempts to block infrastructure projects on a Constitutional basis after that, including the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 through the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956.

Yes, political arguments about such projects can and should continue. But attacking their Constitutional basis probably won't get very far after 150+ years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top