It's not a belief, it's factual, and that came out of the Amtrak Reform Council. If you don't believe it, pick up a copy of Amtrak's annual budget, which is available via the FOIA.
The reason this is true is that the western trains run 70% to full, and the average passenger rides a longer distance, so passenger-mile revenue is substantially higher than on the NEC. Last I checked, the Empire Builder made about $30,000 per run, which is why it was increased from a tri-weekly to daily about fifteen years ago.
The NEC is a huge multibillion dollar gimme to the eastern states, that far exceeds the amount of money spent on ag subsidies. Out west, our state budgets pay for our regional and commuter trains. So you honestly think that the Ag budget is greater than the defense budget? Please. While I'll agree that the ag subsidies are of questionable value, the missiles and bombers that protect Massachusetts have to be based inland. And would you honestly prefer that Ag jobs paid as well as manufacturing (what does MA make anymore, now that Route 128 is gone and DEC is dead)? Hope you like paying $10 for a loaf of bread, or $20 a pound for steak...
If subsidies disappeared tomorrow we'd still be paying the same amount for bread and steak, only we'd be paying efficient large farms and ranches to grow the food instead of wasting money propping up small family farms that can't compete on the world market. Subsidies don't keep prices down; overproduction all around the world does a good enough job already. All they do is pay the buggy whip^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H family farmers to hang on for their next welfare check. And then the big farms go along for the ride, collecting subsidies they don't need because it's built into the system.
If transit in western states is such a good deal, why is Greyhound pulling out of places like northern Minnesota? How is it cost-effective to run trains in places where buses can't even break even and air connections are maintained through federal essential service guarantees?