Transportation Secretary

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
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.
I'm feeling quite grateful that we dodged the Secretary Mica bullet, and we also managed to avoid seeing any paving association lobbyists being appointed to positions of cabinet significance. However we will have to baton down the hatches and prepare for an onslaught of federal policy nuggets being regurgitated from the halls of the stinking anti-rail Bastille known as the Heritage Foundation, with which Secretary Chao has a very polished reputation.
 
yeah, who do you want him to appoint, George Soros? if he appts a highly experienced diverse respected individual, you complain it's an insider . he appoints someone from outside, like Nikki Haley, the complaint is 'no experience'. as the soon to be ex pres. Said " elections have consequences"
 
She's married to Mitch McConnell and a fellow of the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a right wing think tank that has never said a kind thing about Amtrak. Mica would have been a better choice.
 
jis said:
It should not be a problem in fact free zone no matter what :p

I think we could have done far worse on this one quite easily.
Click to expand...
I agree. She was Labor Secretary during the Bush Administration and has a previous stint in transportation, so at least she has experience in transportation and in running a Cabinet department. Many of other major appointments or selections announced so far have zero experience in government and/or are right-wing ideologues. By no means, a safe appointment for Amtrak or transit funding or support of projects, but it could be far worse.

That is she is married to Senator McConnell could create interesting dynamics if other Senators or leaders in the House try to slash funding for her department.
 
afigg said:
jis said:
It should not be a problem in fact free zone no matter what :p

I think we could have done far worse on this one quite easily.
Click to expand...
I agree. She was Labor Secretary during the Bush Administration and has a previous stint in transportation, so at least she has experience in transportation and in running a Cabinet department. Many of other major appointments or selections announced so far have zero experience in government and/or are right-wing ideologues. By no means, a safe appointment for Amtrak or transit funding or support of projects, but it could be far worse.

That is she is married to Senator McConnell could create interesting dynamics if other Senators or leaders in the House try to slash funding for her department.
Click to expand...
This is actually the reason why she might be a good thing for amtrak. McConnell will be far less inclined to cut funding to his wife's department, so worst case scenario is likely more of the current situation. My guess is her background in shipping means she understands the importance of railroads so Amtrak will indirectly benefit from that. Ultimately the secretary can only do so much though.
 
Chao Chao Chao Chao,

we want sleepers, we want diners,

more coaches would be finer,

Chao Chao Chao Chao,

more trains please deliver,

Chao Chao Chao Chao.

Chhhao.
 
afigg said:
jis said:
It should not be a problem in fact free zone no matter what :p

I think we could have done far worse on this one quite easily.
Click to expand...
I agree. She was Labor Secretary during the Bush Administration and has a previous stint in transportation, so at least she has experience in transportation and in running a Cabinet department. Many of other major appointments or selections announced so far have zero experience in government and/or are right-wing ideologues. By no means, a safe appointment for Amtrak or transit funding or support of projects, but it could be far worse.

That is she is married to Senator McConnell could create interesting dynamics if other Senators or leaders in the House try to slash funding for her department.
Click to expand...
Secretary of Labor during Bush 43, yes, but also Deputy Secretary of Transportation during Bush 41, for what it's worth.
 
leacrane said:
yeah, who do you want him to appoint, George Soros? if he appts a highly experienced diverse respected individual, you complain it's an insider . he appoints someone from outside, like Nikki Haley, the complaint is 'no experience'. as the soon to be ex pres. Said " elections have consequences"
Click to expand...
They sure do! Hillary Clinton Won the Popular Vote by the American People by over 2 Million! Not exactly the "Mandate" that the Trumpites are claiming eh?
 
In the 1960 World Series the Yankees out scored the Pirates 55-27. They clearly had the "mandate" to be World Champions. Forget the Mazeroski home run to win Game 7 for the Pirates.

If we don't follow the rules setup in advance, the republic fails.
 
I fail to see the relevance between a sports championship and an election.

The notion of a popular mandate in the political sense is that there is not just majority support, but a sizable majority. The incoming president did not receive a mandate of any sort - not a plurality of the vote, much less a majority, nor a large electoral vote either (44th highest electoral vote share out of 54 comparable elections) - that does not mean the election was illegitimate, just that it certainly does not represent a popular mandate.
 
Good analogy. The popular vote means squat until 2/3 of the states vote to change the constitution. Rules dictate how he campaigns are run. Maybe the GOP would spend more trying tomwin votes in CA, NY, maybe Hillary would have tried in Texas. Like it or not there are 50 states. With no electoral college, candidates could just focus on the biggest and to use a word loved by the left, the so called flyover states would be "disenfranchised " . Getting back to the subject of this forum, I don't think killing or saving Amtrak is on the top 100 list of Trumps priorities. Maybe it's important to us, but frankly, except for the NEC, maybe 2 pct of the voters really give a hoot. Sorry for the reality. This has been so for 50 yrs way before trump
 
To Eric, I agree even as a Trump voter. I believe it was very close and if he is over reaches, is arrogant and fails to reach any accommodation with the opposition, much of his agenda will fail. Just like Obama who lost big in midterms, and after Obamacare, got nothing done except thru illegal and reversible executive actions
 
3/4 of states, not 2/3.

Anyhow, it looks like we could have done far, far worse. We might even manage to get some sort of HSR funding package (e.g. load up enough tax incentives to make LA-Vegas and so on a workable possibility) since that would fall under his wife's bailiwick, and let's not forget that Bush 41 was when those first HSR corridors were designated.
 
Bob Dylan said:
leacrane said:
yeah, who do you want him to appoint, George Soros? if he appts a highly experienced diverse respected individual, you complain it's an insider . he appoints someone from outside, like Nikki Haley, the complaint is 'no experience'. as the soon to be ex pres. Said " elections have consequences"
Click to expand...
They sure do! Hillary Clinton Won the Popular Vote by the American People by over 2 Million! Not exactly the "Mandate" that the Trumpites are claiming eh?
Click to expand...
California is the difference (again) in this election. Leave California out of the tally, and the popular vote goes to the other guy by one million, and the electoral vote difference is more than 100.

If, say, 2.5 million of those California Democrats were to move to Middle America in 2019 for about 13 months, they could then virtually guarantee that their candidate in the 2020 presidential election would win both the popular vote AND the electoral vote.

And If all of those 2.5 million were to take AMTRAK to their new homes in Middle America, it would do wonders to help the finances of our national rail passenger system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anderson said:
3/4 of states, not 2/3.

Anyhow, it looks like we could have done far, far worse. We might even manage to get some sort of HSR funding package (e.g. load up enough tax incentives to make LA-Vegas and so on a workable possibility) since that would fall under his wife's bailiwick, and let's not forget that Bush 41 was when those first HSR corridors were designated.
Click to expand...
And if a constitutional amendment were to be proposed to eliminate the Electoral College and select the President by popular vote, then getting the legislatures of the 41 states who make up 49% of the national population to vote to disenfranchise themselves and grant the Big Nine States with their 51% of the national population the possibility to determine the election outcome would have ZERO chance of being adopted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chakk said:
Anderson said:
3/4 of states, not 2/3.

Anyhow, it looks like we could have done far, far worse. We might even manage to get some sort of HSR funding package (e.g. load up enough tax incentives to make LA-Vegas and so on a workable possibility) since that would fall under his wife's bailiwick, and let's not forget that Bush 41 was when those first HSR corridors were designated.
Click to expand...
And if a constitutional amendment were to be proposed to eliminate the Electoral College and select the President by popular vote, then getting the legislatures of the 41 states who make up 49% of the national population to vote to disenfranchise themselves and grant the Big Nine States with their 51% of the national population the possibility to determine the election outcome would have ZERO chance of being adopted.
Click to expand...
It's obviously more complicated than that. I suspect strongly that HI, VT, and RI would favor such an amendment in spite of "losing out" on it. Remember, deep red/blue states are also functionally disenfranchised insofar as candidates generally have no more reason to visit WY or VT than CA or TX.

As to people moving, how do you think CO flipped from the Republican column to the Democratic? Not just folks moving in but their money played a big role there: Between 1916 (when Wilson won it) and 2008 (when Obama won it), the only times Colorado voted Democratic outside of blowouts (1932, 1936, 1964) were in 1992 (when Perot took 23% of the vote) and 1948. Of course, trying to "tactically distribute" those voters would be an interesting exercise...as would convincing a few million Californians to park in the Rust Belt for a political project.

Anyhow, I do think this discussion is wandering slightly afield of the topic.
 
And If all of those 2.5 million were to take AMTRAK to Middle America, it would do wonders to help the finances of our national rail passenger system.

I for one am a Californian who does take Amtrak to middle America, but I'm just passing thru-.
 
Actually there already seems to be a migration from California to other states, due to high housing costs and other issues. What keeps the California population growing are international migrants.

Now how the California migrants vote when they get to their new states is another issue.
 
Discussion of the population migration and the electoral college can be started in Random Discussions. Let's keep this one to discussion of the nominee for Secretary of Transportation.
 
Eric S said:
afigg said:
jis said:
It should not be a problem in fact free zone no matter what :p

I think we could have done far worse on this one quite easily.
Click to expand...
I agree. She was Labor Secretary during the Bush Administration and has a previous stint in transportation, so at least she has experience in transportation and in running a Cabinet department. Many of other major appointments or selections announced so far have zero experience in government and/or are right-wing ideologues. By no means, a safe appointment for Amtrak or transit funding or support of projects, but it could be far worse.

That is she is married to Senator McConnell could create interesting dynamics if other Senators or leaders in the House try to slash funding for her department.
Click to expand...
Secretary of Labor during Bush 43, yes, but also Deputy Secretary of Transportation during Bush 41, for what it's worth.
Click to expand...
She had the portfolio of Maritime Transportation during her stint as Deputy Secretary of Transportation.

I doubt that marriage will have much of a role in the dynamics of budget negotiations between the Senate and the House.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top