TxDOT puts out feelers to replace Amtrak running the daily Heartland F

[gswager]

I can think of are Sandia Laboratories and Los Alamos National Lab.

Side note per this adjusted listing. New Mexico is the leader of the pack ever year in federal funds.

Why or what does New Mexico do to earn that?

 

[Ryan]

Their method seems reasonable, given the fact that the Fed spend more than it receives in revenue from the states.

How would you propose doing it?

 

[neroden]

Just-Thinking is right -- the Tax Foundation scheme is bogus math.

The fact is that the federal government is actually generating money and pumping it into the economy, so there are substantially more "beneficiaries" than "donors" -- it's not a zero-sum game, there's a net benefit from the federal government. Make no mistake -- any state which seceded would lose all that Federally printed money. And most of them wouldn't really be able to replace it, because their locally printed money wouldn't be considered hard currency.

(The possible exception is California. California's economy is so huge that it really could just issue money, and everyone would take it. California's population is larger than that of Canada or France. California's GDP is larger than that of almost every country in the world, excepting the US, China, Japan, Germany, France, the UK, and Brazil. And it's rising in the rankings, too. Texas has a big GDP, but it's not like California, and a lot of that GDP is just oil. NY also has a big GDP, but a lot of that is finance, which is questionable in terms of measurement.)

 

[Aaron]

Why or what does New Mexico do to earn that?

It's the location of many Native American reservations (8 by my count), the aforementioned White Sands and Los Alamos, four Air Force bases. and not a whole lot else that produces taxable revenue.

 

[cirdan]

Also, remember that politics will tend towards a mean...

Not really true. I'm expecting a "party shift" in the near future where the parties end up with very different platforms than they have had during most of my life. The parties aren't really aligned with the issues of the day at the moment, and there's a number of issues where neither party represents the majority opinion; this is a situation ripe for a party shift.

It's a normal phenomenon that if a party loses ground and loses influence that they don't just sit back and watch everything go downhill but at some point start asking what went wrong and developing a new strategy and a new identity and bring in new people and sooner or later those efforts lead to success and the shift reverses until its the other party that needs to re-assess itself and so the game goes on. Anybody who pretends to be able to predict where either party will be 20 or 30 years from now might as well be reading tea leaves.

Also basing electoral success on demographic change isn't a very useful tool. In the post Civil War period, most African Americans voted Republican. Today most vote Democrat. Do you want really want to predict what Latinos or African Americans will be doing politically in 40 years times?

 

[neroden]

It's a normal phenomenon that if a party loses ground and loses influence that they don't just sit back and watch everything go downhill but at some point start asking what went wrong and developing a new strategy and a new identity and bring in new people

Yeah... or they declare that everyone who isn't on their side are apostates, start running purges, rigging the voting rules at the convention to prevent the disaffected from getting power, getting smaller and smaller, causing more people to abandon them... and eventually the people who abandoned them form a new party with a different name.
This is pretty normal too. Parties can take the "reform" route or the "self-destruction" route, both are about equally common.

Anybody who pretends to be able to predict where either party will be 20 or 30 years from now might as well be reading tea leaves.

To some extent, certainly. I think I can spot a self-destructive cycle of exclusion and purges, though. The Federalists didn't recover from theirs, and the Whigs didn't recover from theirs. It's possible to recover from it, of course; the Liberals in the UK were almost completely wiped out in the mid-20th century, and they came back.
Sometimes it's actually hard to say whether a party recovered or not: the Progressive Conservatives (Tories) in Canada were completely wiped out a few elections back. The Progressive Conservatives didn't come back; they're gone; but the Conservative Party of Canada (also called Tories) came back very quickly. Different party organization, but the continuity is obvious.

Also basing electoral success on demographic change isn't a very useful tool. In the post Civil War period, most African Americans voted Republican. Today most vote Democrat. Do you want really want to predict what Latinos or African Americans will be doing politically in 40 years times?

I strongly suspect they won't be voting Republican because the party organization won't exist anymore, having shrunk itself into oblivion through repeated purges of the insufficiently doctrinaire, and hostility to most growing demographics, including, most relevantly, outright hostility to cities.
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_1_gop-cities.html

http://www.newgeography.com/content/003402-why-republicans-need-cities

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/republicans-wont-compete-in-cities/

What party will these demographics be voting for? No idea! Maybe the Libertarian or Conservative or Right-to-Life party, or some party which has not yet been established, will have taken over the ideological role which the Republican Party used to have. Maybe the Democratic Party will become the new right-wing party and the Greens or Working Families or some new party will be the new left-wing party. I wouldn't dare to predict. I just think I can see a self-destructive cycle when I'm looking at one.

The hostility to cities in particular is actually relevant to passenger train service, because train service works better in cities; it makes sense for a party which is openly hostile to the very concept of cities to also oppose train service. Now, there are a few small counter-examples -- the mayor of Fresno is a Republican, obviously a supporter of cities, and strongly supports passenger rail. So I'm expecting her to be chased out of the Republican Party the way Charlie Crist was -- or even the way Eric Cantor was.

More on the pattern we're watching:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/will-the-gop-ever-win-another-presidential-election/

Apparently the "Economist Intelligence Unit"’s index of democracies rates only Spain, Belgium, Japan, and Costa Rica as less functional than the USA, with all other democracies being more functional. This unfortunately means that the party realignment is going to be a slow, tortuous process.

Anyway, once the party realignment happens, I'm guessing we will no longer have a party which is openly and aggressively hostile to cities; it's just not a viable position to take, demographically speaking. As a result, I think the politics of passenger rail in this country will straighten itself out quite a bit.

 

[henryj]

This has gone totally off the topic of the Heartland Flyer. But, temporarily I think we will see a huge backlash this November against incumbents, meaning Democrats will be wiped out in the House and Senate. However, for 2016 It looks like a big Democratic comeback to win the presidency, probably Hillary, as the Repubs have no leader. What does this mean for Amtrak. Well if Biden can get the Pres ear, nothing. Any attempt to defund Amtrak will just get vetoed.

 

[Ryan]

I think we will see a huge backlash this November against incumbents, meaning Democrats will be wiped out in the House and Senate.

You realize that the Republicans have a majority in the House, right?

So a backlash against the incumbents would wipe that out and the House will have a Democratic majority, right?

There's no way it happens, but your position isn't logically consistent.

 

[neroden]

Again, I have no idea about the short term. But in the long term, I think the party shifts / realignments are going to leave us with parties (under whatever names) which are *both* more pro-urban and therefore both more amenable to passenger rail.

I just don't think that the anti-urban, "cars & roads uber alles" plank in the platform is going to be a viable one for much longer, given demographic trends. It was a very viable political plank in the 1950s, when populations were much lower -- but not any more.

 

[jis]

Yup. The general population flow trend is also away from the hinterland to urban centers, naturally creating a somewhat more favorable distribution for rail.

 

[cirdan]

This has gone totally off the topic of the Heartland Flyer. But, temporarily I think we will see a huge backlash this November against incumbents, meaning Democrats will be wiped out in the House and Senate. However, for 2016 It looks like a big Democratic comeback to win the presidency, probably Hillary, as the Repubs have no leader. What does this mean for Amtrak. Well if Biden can get the Pres ear, nothing. Any attempt to defund Amtrak will just get vetoed.

But would Hillary be as pro-rail as Obama + Biden were trying to be?

If she is pro-rail, she certainly didn't put much weight on her husband in that respect when he was president.

The best thing for rail would be to see Biden become president, but I don't think that's realistic right now.

 

[cirdan]

Again, I have no idea about the short term. But in the long term, I think the party shifts / realignments are going to leave us with parties (under whatever names) which are *both* more pro-urban and therefore both more amenable to passenger rail.

I just don't think that the anti-urban, "cars & roads uber alles" plank in the platform is going to be a viable one for much longer, given demographic trends. It was a very viable political plank in the 1950s, when populations were much lower -- but not any more.

Even countries like Germany have strong and militant "roads and cars" political factions and auto makers and construction companies have considerable political influence (which is why, for example, there is no speed limit on the autobahn). There are also strong pro urban factions trying to pull thing in the other direction, which is why overall things balance out more. But the "whatever the question is, the answer must be to build more roads" is not going to go away for a long time. It is just that the alternative viewpoints are getting a stronger platform.

Furthermore, even among the politicians who do favor urbanism and public transit, there are plenty of misconceptions and misinformation and well meaning politicians can sometimes support decisions that "benefit the enemy".

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Their method seems reasonable, given the fact that the Fed spend more than it receives in revenue from the states.How would you propose doing it?

Not all revenue is from the states. Import and exports fees are credited to states? Overhead Aircraft radar and control? How does a national employer pay the federal taxes?

We need to strip these msg into a spread thread. So off the OP.

 

[henryj]

I think we will see a huge backlash this November against incumbents, meaning Democrats will be wiped out in the House and Senate.

You realize that the Republicans have a majority in the House, right?

So a backlash against the incumbents would wipe that out and the House will have a Democratic majority, right?

There's no way it happens, but your position isn't logically consistent.

I really don't have time to explain it to you so just 'hide and watch' come November.

 

[neroden]

Furthermore, even among the politicians who do favor urbanism and public transit, there are plenty of misconceptions and misinformation and well meaning politicians can sometimes support decisions that "benefit the enemy".

If only this were our major problem! The "Roads uber alles" group has been our major problem for my entire life. I look forward to the collapse of their influence.

 

[Ryan]

I think we will see a huge backlash this November against incumbents, meaning Democrats will be wiped out in the House and Senate.

You realize that the Republicans have a majority in the House, right?

So a backlash against the incumbents would wipe that out and the House will have a Democratic majority, right?

There's no way it happens, but your position isn't logically consistent.

I really don't have time to explain it to you so just 'hide and watch' come November.

It's not rocket surgery, Henry. In an anti-incumbent wave, the majority party stands to be hurt. In the House, that majority is solidly Republican.

 

[jis]

While the net net result may be what henryj suggests the logic used to arrive at it based on the stated premises is one that would be quite foreign to trained logicians I am afraid. Unless of course the unstated premise that only the incumbent party in terms of who is the President counts and everything else can be ignored.

 

[henryj]

Hope springs eternal for you guys I guess. lol. I just hope our trains can survive whatever is coming.

 

[Ryan]

Nobody is saying that we disagree with your conclusion, Henry.

I agree that the Senate has a good chance of flipping, and that the House will remain in Republican control.

The issue is the "logic" that you used to come up with it. The House remaining in Republican hands is the exact opposite of the "incumbent backlash" that you predict.

 

[jis]

Actually, the only backlashes will happen in the primaries. Those incumbents that get through the primaries will generally get elected like they always do. The reason that Senate might flip is because more Democrat held seats are up this time than Republican held seats. The situation is reversed in spades two years down the line.

 

[Bob Dylan]

2016 is the election that matters since President Obama ( unless the Lunatics Impeach him!) And Amtrak Joe will be in office until Jan 2017!

We have a history of divided government and the Republicans will not have a 2/3s Majority to overcome the Presidents Vetoes of unpopular and idiotic bills!

I agree that the Republicans will probably take the Senate and retain control of the House but with the Gridlock and lack of Leadership in Congress well basically live with Continuing Resolutions funding the Government until we once again have one party in Control of the White House and Congress! (which should be the Democrats based on Demographics and the Republicans usually snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory like they've dine the last couple of election cycles!)

As Casey Stengel said, " You could look it up!"

 

[neroden]

The Republicans have used gerrymandering to control far more House seats than they should based on the popular vote (egregious examples include Ohio and Texas).

It's almost certain that Democrats will gain seats in the US House in 2014 (yes, this is partly due to strong anti-incumbent sentiment) -- it's just unlikely that they'll gain enough seats to flip the balance of power, thanks to the number of seats which are gerrymandered.

Upon doing my research, I find that the Republican Party establishment fought hard in favor of rotten boroughs, malapportionment, and similar anti-democratic practices in the 1960s. This was found to be unconstitutional in a line of cases including Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims, and Wesberry v. Sanders. Now that that is largely denied to them (although the NY Legislature still malapportions to the maximum extent allowed by the courts), the main backup plan for disenfranchising the people has been gerrymandering.

It seems to take a long time to get rid of the forces who want to prevent the popular vote from winning elections. The history of South Australia (the "Playmander") is particularly egregious. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see actual democracy in the US at the federal level in my lifetime, but I can hope.

 

[VentureForth]

Both Republicans and Democrats gerrymander!

Can someone please put a stop to this ridiculous POLITICAL non-stop bashing of the RIGHT?

Honestly, if I started in 2 pages ago about how George Bush was so great for Amtrak, the thread would have been shut down and I would have been banned already.

 

[jis]

My my aren't we a bit touchy today!

Some of us were just discussing the potentials of various results of the elections and the possible reasons for them. That is hardly bashing anyone. There may be a few posts here and there by a few that may be viewed as bashing the right, but stating that there is continuous bashing of the right is just extreme hyperbole in my opinion.

Stating that Biden is great for Amtrak, a generally acknowledged fact, is hardly bashing the right. I wonder if using the same measuring stick saying that Clinton did not do much for Amtrak is praising the right.

 

[Ryan]

Sure. Just as soon as they stop doing dumb stuff to get bashed over.

Yes. Both sides do it. Maryland is infamous for gerrymandering in favor of the Democrats.

Lets go to the videotape one more time and look at the last congressional race.

In 2012, there were nearly half a million more votes cast for Democrats than Republicans when you aggregate all of the votes nationwide. One would expect, in a functioning democracy, for the House to be very nearly split 50/50 or a slight advantage to the Democrats. However, Republicans in the House maintain a 30 seat majority.

So spare me the false equivalency and get real.