Should the federal government subsidize Amtrak?

Approve it!

I like this issue.

USA Today Editorial

Time for federal subsidies to depart Amtrak's stations
Amtrak, the nation's troubled passenger railroad, might as well have been in a train wreck.

Its flagship fleet, the Washington-New York-Boston Acela Express, was sidelined last week by faulty brakes. The Acelas will return this summer at the earliest. Meanwhile, the Bush administration wants to cut off the federal payments that keep Amtrak alive. And today, Amtrak's leaders go before a Senate committee to fight for the railroad's life.

boom. 

All aboard, train is leaving the station...

Having recently taken an Amtrak train to Washington D.C., I suddenly have a stronger opinion on this issue. Why don't we just approve it and make Brian happy forever?

This issue in it's current frame is what the debate is.  Let Nick's suggestions come out in the blogs. This is a domestic policy issue, not exciting stuff but it's always talked about at some point or another.

That's a very different question, but maybe too broad. Abolish public transportation? I've never heard anyone advocating that.

Is government funded transportation better off being privatized?

a couple of points:

we need to decide whether we want to open this issue up to the idea of privatization.  personally, i think you can answer "no" to the question as is and then blog about the fact that you want to see it privatized.  i recognize the issue is framed as is but i'm not digging nick's revision for two reasons:

1) what should be done about amtrak is too casual
2) the stands are out of control

i can't come up with a better way to word this issue though.

i like this issue. this amtrak situation has gone on long enough in a pathetic back and forth. However, the question isn't just one of subsidies. how about multiple options...

What should be done about Amtrak?
-govt. subsidies are enough
-it should be completely privatized, allowed to fail, and opened up to competition
-we don't need no stinkin' trains

Anyone else?

i like trains too, i just don't care about this issue. but i'm convinced, it's a debate. have fun

Trains are cool!

i'm fine with it.  it's relevant.  it's free from bias.  reasonable people can disagree. is it interesting ... for some people i'm sure it is.  maybe not me or esperanto but someone, like brian perhaps!

I got it from a meet the press interview.  Biden and Santorum were asked about it on the show.  Both had strong opinions.  It's certainly not a big debate, but it exists.

Common Dreams:  Federal Govt. Should Stop Starving Amtrak

They have a big friend in Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who rails against federal subsidies to Amtrak but sees no problem in federal subsidies for parched Arizona's water systems or subsidized air service to small Arizona towns.

Rep. Jack Quinn, R-N.Y. Quinn warns of imminent peril of "disintegration" of U.S. passenger rail service. "I will not stand by and watch that train leave the station," he pledges.

Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) requested that Amtrak be denied all funding, except in the busy Northeast corridor.

There's definitely a debate about whether not subsidizing amtrak will basically kill off our rail system, while others say it's unfair for tax dollars to spent on an uncompetitive industry.  Many throw in the environment concerns as well if we're totally dependent on highways.

is there some rationale behind proposing this? i don't think i've ever heard a public official talk about it, nor anyone else for that matter. i think it fails the relevant, interesting, and evidence tests.

just add: U.S.

Should the U.S. federal government subsidize Amtrak?  Remember that we want to make every issue possible of standing alone i.e. it must make sense without its topic.  Therefore, this issue needs the U.S. to adequately explain federal government.  otherwise, i'm fine with this, a bit obscure but still fine.