Good to see Sen. Steve Abrams at the informational meeting last night for the Amtrack extension through Ark City. Now if we can get Kasha Kelley aboard (pun intended).
What we don't hear from either of them is strong advocacy, which is what it will take from lawmakers whose districts stand to benefit. As I said earlier, it's hard for Abrams and Kelley them to take up a cause that could cost the state more money, esp. if general fund dollars are needed.
But, hey, they are fiscal conservatives, and subsidizing train service isn't what they were elected on.
But it would be nice to see them fighting for something that seems an obvious benefit to our area.
A novice's take on the local, state and national political scenes
Me
David Allen
- Politics 101
- All politics is local -Tip O'Neil
4 comments:
I am for having a train go through here, as I think it would stimulate the local economy. But, if subsidizing it would cause the state to lose money, well, you'll have a trickle down scenerio. The general fund will be depleted, meaning either more cuts (which they have already done), and/or possible tax hikes (like the 1 cent they just imposed). Is having a subsidized rail system worth losing more money to education (and possible jobs), or the Winfield prison being shut down due to budget cuts? I'd rather see our representatives be a little cost-conscience, than to end up like California, which was issuing IOUs because they were broke. Yes, a rail system would be great, but it would be pretty worthless if nobody can get here because the state doesn't have the money to fix and maintain the roads to get here.
There is no way this deal will fly (pun intended). The best option here is to find a rich benefactor who wants to have this new rail system and the various depot stations named after them. I can't imagine how it would be a good idea to pursue this with tax dollars. It is a losing deal all the way around making no economic sense whatever. If it made sense, it would happen on its own without a subsidy. Their own studies suggest it would fail without subsidies. We need less government not more. We pay enough taxes already and see very minute benefit from it. Would this be great to have? Absolutely but not at the cost of tax subsidies.
June 1, 2010 9:02 AM -- A proud member of the something for nothing crowd.
Interesting thought about passenger rail not working without subsidies. And totally true. Has anyone considered how air travel would be in Wichita without subsidies? Could we even have an airport without them?
And while we are on it, how far could we drive if the roads weren't paid for by our government? Is that a step too far? I don't think so. It is just proof that whatever mode of travel we choose the government (our tax dollars) provide a generous portion of it.
The real question is whether or not passenger rail would be used. Could it lessen other travel subsidies, or could it generate enough income (taxes?) to offset all or a good share of the costs? Or develop enough tourism industry to make it worth the expense? Those are the questions we need to be asking over the next several months or few years.
Post a Comment