OK - so I am few days late in reacting to this:
CNN.com - Bush plan to eliminate Amtrak subsidy faces fight - Feb 9, 2005
The challenge (for me) when assessing proposals made by politicians is to decide among five alternatives:
- They are right -- the proposal is good public policy (meaning -- I agree with it)
If they are wrong, we disagree because:
- They are stupid, and do not understand the issues
- They are evil, and have a personal profit motive (e.g. meeting their campaign contributors needs)
- They have a different view of "right" and "wrong" than I. This could be based on religion, or some other moral basis. Reasonable people can differ regarding such issues.
- I am stupid, and do not understand the issue.
I will always discard 5. as an option that I discuss -- it is for other people to make that case.
In the case of Amtrak, the proposal is clearly wrong. The federal government subsidizes Amtrak's competition (personal automobiles) by maintaining the US Interstate system. Without the Interstate road system, trains would be packed.
It is bad public policy to subsidize the less efficient of competing alternatives. It may even be bad policy to subsidize any private endeavor, but that is another question.
So, the administration is either paying back political contributions, does not understand the issue, or believes it is morally wrong to ride trains. You decide -- I don't know.