SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ron who wrote (52252)12/12/2005 4:18:05 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362752
 
Can Amtrak Survive Three More Years of Bush?
__________________________________________________________

by Neal Peirce /

Published on Monday, December 12, 2005 by the Seattle Times

The United States needs strong regional passenger-rail systems, linked across the country to provide alternatives to highway grids already choked by autos and fast-growing fleets of freight trucks.

It should be a matter of simple common sense, patriotism and high priority.

But the Bush administration, never stingy with favors and subsidies to private corporate interests, can't bear the fact that Amtrak, the only national rail system we have, has been receiving more than $1 billion a year in subsidies for capital and operations.

Last winter, Bush recommended zero-budgeting for Amtrak. Then, last month, he had his hand-picked board fire David Gunn, Amtrak's highly respected president. The move prompted consternation to fury in Amtrak's remarkably broad, bipartisan congressional support group. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., put it most colorfully: "Amtrak is now being run by a board made up of members who have virtually no experience in passenger rail. ... Mr. Gunn was fired because he would not agree with 'FEMA-tizing' Amtrak."

Hired in 2002 before Bush appointees took control of the Amtrak board, Gunn was picked to give Amtrak a tough, hands-on rail executive with skills to correct the long, slow slide in performance and credibility that Amtrak, for many reasons, was enduring.

By all accounts, he lived up to expectations — trimming waste, adding equipment, shoring up service. Amtrak broke ridership levels for three straight years (most recently to 25.3 million passengers). It was the kind of tough turnaround mastery he'd previously shown in restoring New York City's graffiti-ridden subway system, close to collapse in the 1980s when he took it over.

But the Bush administration's hostility never abated. The Amtrak board was left with only one member confirmed by the Senate — David Laney, a Texan and former Bush campaign fundraiser. The other seats were left vacant or filled with recess appointees. In September, the board voted to explore breaking off the Northeast Corridor into a subsidiary of Amtrak that rail defenders feared might just be a first step toward the administration's goal of breaking Amtrak into separate multistate operating units and ending federal operating grants — de facto privatization.

Gunn opposed the move. With Northeast Corridor train traffic already running at capacity, he argued, unified "iron discipline" is critical to coordinate train operations and maintenance of tracks.

His reward? Firing. Why? Gunn himself: "The board is just a puppet for the administration. ... I was standing in the way of their plans to dismantle a company."

Could it, though, make any sense to go the administration's way, with states obliged to help finance regional rail corporations and private-sector firms running the trains?

No, says, former Amtrak president Tom Downs, because the states — unconsulted, for example, on the proposed Northeast Corridor spinoff — would surely resist taking responsibility for operating costs, not to mention more billions for needed capital investment.

And why, asks Downs, would the administration even think of dismembering Amtrak without checking on the "disaster" that occurred after the British Tories privatized British rail a decade ago? The respected British newsweekly The Economist recently summed up the widely held opinion: "The privatization of British Rail has proved a disastrous failure ... a catalogue of political cynicism, managerial incompetence and financial opportunism. It has cost taxpayers billions of pounds and brought rail travelers countless hours of delays."

Surely, Downs suggests, we should "look across the pond and take a serious look at what went wrong in the nation with the closest capitalist model to our own. They have multiple rail companies and fares, and trouble even issuing a national ticket."

The advocates of privatization also need to be reminded that it's not just Amtrak — that America's highways, airports and seaports are all heavily subsidized. Airlines, and even the big auto manufacturers, come running to Washington for one form of aid or another.

Indeed, Amtrak's problem hasn't as much been poor management as lack of significant capital funds to upgrade equipment nationwide and correct the alarming deterioration of the Northeast Corridor tracks and tunnels it owns — investment needed for an economically sound national future.

The good news is that Congress isn't listening to the administration. It has voted $1.3 billion for Amtrak operations in fiscal 2006, the administration's zero-funding request notwithstanding.

Gunn's management succeeded so well that the Senate just voted 93-6 for legislation authorizing $11.4 billion, over six years, for major infrastructure repairs and rail corridor improvement.

Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., calling the failure to appoint a fully functioning Amtrak board "disgraceful," has introduced legislation to require a bipartisan, qualified nine-member Amtrak board.

But can Congress force a hostile administration to keep running a railroad it doesn't like, and to avoid fatal management steps? For the remaining three years of the Bush presidency, that's the critical question.

commondreams.org



To: Ron who wrote (52252)12/12/2005 4:24:32 PM
From: SiouxPal  Respond to of 362752
 
After Success as Governor in G.O.P. Stronghold, Democrat Seeks a National Identity



By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: December 12, 2005

ORLANDO, Dec. 11 - Propelled by his popularity at home, Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia has begun a major foray onto the national stage, raising millions of dollars for his likely presidential bid and visiting states already being courted by potential 2008 contenders.
Skip to next paragraph

Chris Livingston for The New York Times
Virginia's governor, Mark Warner, signed a poster Sunday for Rita Posner at a Democratic event in Florida.

The latest stop came in Florida this weekend at a state Democratic Party convention just outside Orlando, where Governor Warner took the opportunity to tell how he had led Democrats out of the political wilderness in heavily Republican Virginia - with the implication that he could do the same for Democrats nationally in 2008.

"Virginia is as red a state as you can imagine," Governor Warner told Democrats who packed a hotel reception room on Saturday night.

Then, describing his own formula for success, he continued: "As Democrats, what we have to do is put forward ideas and candidates that can win in places like Florida, that can win in places like Virginia."

Governor Warner's visit here comes as he and his advisers seek to capitalize on a sudden wave of attention from those active in Democratic politics around the country, who say they are excited by the prospect that a centrist Southerner could rise to the top of their leadership, as Bill Clinton did more than a decade ago.

Recently, Mr. Warner has made appearances before Democratic audiences in South Carolina and New Hampshire, both crucial primary states.

Perhaps as important, he raised at least $2.5 million at an event last week in Tysons Corner, Va., that his advisers described as a kind of coming-out party as he prepares to leave the governor's mansion after four years and enter a new phase in his political life.

The gathering, billed as a "Taste of America," was the first fund-raising event organized by Governor Warner's national political action committee, Forward Together. It offered guests a sampling of regional dishes against a backdrop of ice sculptures of national landmarks like the Statue of Liberty and the Golden Gate Bridge.

The theme of the event was telling, reflecting Governor Warner's initial efforts to introduce himself to people outside his home territory. While he has enjoyed high approval ratings in his home state, his name carries little recognition outside it.

For example, Art Torres, the California Democratic Party chairman, said Governor Warner barely registered among Democrats on the West Coast. "No buzz here," Mr. Torres said.

Mr. Warner is the first to acknowledge that he has his work cut out for him. "I'm under no illusions," he said in a recent interview. "This is a giant mountain to climb."

Governor Warner got a bounce for his national aspirations when his political protégé and lieutenant governor, Tim Kaine, won the race for governor in Virginia last month. Political analysts say Mr. Kaine benefited greatly from his association with Governor Warner, who enjoys an 80 percent approval rating in a state that has supported a Republican presidential candidate in every election since 1964.

Democrats have begun taking a closer look at Governor Warner as someone who could have strong appeal among moderates and conservatives, particularly in Republican strongholds like the South.

Staking out territory in the middle, Governor Warner has played down core Democratic issues like abortion rights, even though he supports them. At the same time, he has emphasized themes like fiscal discipline, school accountability, the streamlining of government services and gun rights. Recently he granted clemency to a convicted killer, declaring that the loss of a crucial piece of evidence had convinced him that the man should not be put to death.

Governor Warner clearly hopes to encourage the idea that he can compete in states that have delivered the White House to Republicans in the last two elections.

At a reception here in Florida, State Senator Steven A. Geller, a Democrat from Broward County, pulled Mr. Warner aside and told him the only candidate he would support for president was one "who can turn those red states blue." Governor Warner suggested he was that candidate. "If we can do it in Virginia," he said, "then we can do it in the rest of America."

Some Democrats have suggested that he could rival several of the big-name Democrats considering a presidential run, chief among them Hillary Rodham Clinton, the junior senator from New York.

"Clearly, Hillary Clinton is the first among equals," said Don Fowler of South Carolina, a former Democratic National Committee chairman. "But clearly, Warner is now among the people you have to take seriously."

More than a week ago, for example, Governor Warner attended a Democratic Party lunch in Manchester, N.H., that had been expected to draw about 40 people.

Ray Buckley, vice chairman of the state Democratic Party, said more than 200 people wound up reserving seats at the last minute.

"I really didn't think his name was all that well known," said Mr. Buckley, who organized the lunch and who has been involved in nine presidential campaigns. "Then, the Virginia elections happen, and there's all this media attention, and the R.S.V.P.'s just start pouring in."

Mr. Warner, 50, who made millions in the telecommunications industry, is a relative newcomer to elected office. In 2001, he rattled the Republican establishment in Virginia when he became the first Democrat to capture the governor's office in 12 years.

While Mr. Warner had been a mainstream Democrat for much of his life, he ran as a "Virginia conservative." Once in office, one of his most notable achievements was dealing with a fiscal crisis. Working with the Republican-controlled Legislature, he managed to balance the state's books with, among other things, a $1.4 billion tax increase.

Today, he and his aides point to his stewardship of Virginia as evidence of his ability to build consensus with the opposition, though his support for a tax increase may become fodder for his opponents down the road.

He has offered himself as a leader whose governing approach favors practical results over ideological clashes, in a style reminiscent of Mr. Clinton's "third way," the middle course the president tried to steer between the political right and the left.

Mr. Warner and his advisers note that Time magazine recently listed him among America's five best governors, while a survey by Governing magazine identified Virginia as the "best-managed state."

"The country is much more interested in getting things done," Governor Warner said, declaring that Washington had become paralyzed with partisan antipathy.

The next year will be crucial for Mr. Warner, as other prospective candidates maneuver for the 2008 presidential race, among them former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, both of whom made appearances at the Democratic convention here this weekend.

Political analysts say Governor Warner will need to establish a national identity and a network of support that enables him to compete, particularly against Mrs. Clinton.

"I don't think 'front-runner' is too strong a word in describing her," said Mr. Fowler, the former Democratic chairman, referring to polls showing that Mrs. Clinton enjoys greater support among Democrats than anyone else mentioned as a possible presidential contender in the party.

Still, some strategists maintain that Governor Warner may benefit from the fact that he is an unknown quantity. It provides him with the opportunity to fill in the blanks, these strategists say, as he introduces himself to party regulars, whereas Mrs. Clinton is already considered a polarizing figure.

As Mr. Fowler put it, Mr. Warner has "no known negatives" at this point.

"He has an opportunity to write on a clean slate," Mr. Fowler said.

nytimes.com