Replies

Massachusetts has poured way more money into the welfare sinkholes of Montana and North Dakota over the last 20 years than we've gotten back for our highway projects.

You must be referring to the "Red Welfare State" story that was released by Democratic operatives just prior to the election. This was later thoroughly debunked as being due to 1) the progressive income tax structure [MA has a lot more millionaires than MT] and 2) the effect of defense spending [most of the nation's nuclear arsenal is in MT and ND].

Montana and North Dakota receive one train each way per day. That train makes money on solely-related costs, but thanks to Amtrak's bizarre accounting scheme, appears to lose money. That's because the western long distance trains are "taxed" a fee to connect to the Northeast Corridor -- without that fee, all but one make money. The NEC, in contrast, makes money on its operating costs, but DOES NOT make its cost of capital, which is paid for by ... the long distance western trains.

To replace the one train per day, the federal government would have to either 1) build a string of Class 1 airports along the northern tier, or 2) bring US 2 up to Interstate standards, both of which would cost billions and certainly not break even.

Believe what you like. There is no way on Earth that an Amtrak train covering the upper Plains states--territory Greyhound doesn't even want to cover any more, it's so sparse--is SUBSIDIZING the capital needs of the northeast corridor. Surely Amtrak isn't covering the capital needs either, but those trains running through the west aren't making money for anyone but the lucky saps who get to ride them.

When I referred to the welfare sinkholes in North Dakota and Montana, I was thinking more along the lines of agricultural subsidies in addition to other services that are naturally more expensive in sparse rural areas and not provided by the market. Defense doesn't begin to explain the federal money piled high in those states like snow drifts in February.

If Massachusetts has more millionaires, that's because we have people who work hard, succeed, and earn the fruits of their labor. I don't cotton well to class-warfare arguments that the larger number of high-income people in northeast states mean that we should be sending so much more to farmers and rural folk as Congress has been doing for years. It could just as easily mean that we need some CONSERVATIVE government that allows us to keep some of our money--turn Amtrak over to the states or a private company, and see which train lines are still running in 5 years. I bet it won't be the one running through Havre, MT.

To replace the one train per day, the federal government would have to either 1) build a string of Class 1 airports along the northern tier, or 2) bring US 2 up to Interstate standards, both of which would cost billions and certainly not break even.

Excuse me, but since when is every two-bit town entitled to a Class 1 Airport or an interstate-quality road? If Montana wants to make US 2 into an interstate, it has the road taxes to do so. That they haven't yet shows how little sense it makes to have transportation to the northern prairies be a federal entitlement. I can see more people out my front window than live in all of eastern Montana--and people like you have the nerve to complain about our highways!