What is unconscionable is stealing our money so that other people can ride a train somewhere. Amtrak is unconstitutional. The federal government has absolutely no authority to run a train line, especially when they're stealing our money in order to do so. If you can show me where the Constitution allows for a federal transportation service other than establishing post roads, I'll rescind my argument.

Efficient, economical, and affordable? Not in my experience. There were three or four times that I wanted to ride from Alexandria, VA, to Greensboro and back, and it would have cost me about $200 and taken two or three hours longer each way than it would have if I'd driven. That's on top of the fact that Amtrak's web site was so poorly designed that it wouldn't even find the departure/return times closest to my preferences. I basically had to enter every possible departure-return-time combination until I just happened to hit one that matched a scheduled trip. They have fixed that since then, but there was no excuse for the incompetency at that time. Typical government-run service.

Anyway, why must the government run a train service when it could be turned over to a private companies which would do an infinitely better job?

The US Government should not be subsidizing the train OR the airline transportation industries. From what I've witnessed, most subsidies create inefficiencies.

The writer compares government bailouts of transportation companies with money paid for roads. Infrastructure, in terms of highways and roads, is chiefly paid from state revenues. Also, almost every taxpayer uses roads and highways every day. Usually, there is no extra charge or fare to use these roads. This is exactly the kind of place where I WANT my tax dollars to go.

"Usually, there is no extra charge or fare to use these roads."

You make a valid rebuttal MrT, but the above is really only accurate in the strictest sense. The 24 or so cents per gallon of gasoline in state taxes is your fee. At least that's not being charged of the people who are not users though, unlike the train and airline subsidies.

Actually, that's exactly what I mean. I don't mind my tax dollars (from income tax, tax on gas or any other tax) going to pay for roads because I (and almost everyone else) uses them. Beyond taxes on gasoline and other sources, I don't pay an extra charge to a private company to use the roads. (Even though private companies may benefit from government contracts that my tax dollar pays for) In the end, I support the use of tax revenues to build roads because they are accessible to anyone paying taxes for no extra fee. Or at least they should be.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my letter. Here are my responses to several points I heard mentioned in rebuttals:

- The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that expects its passenger railroad to turn a profit and does not provide it as a public service. Our overall transportation system is well behind those of Europe and Asia, and passenger rail is a big part of this.
- "The federal government has absolutely no authority to run a train line": Actually, the 1971 legislation that established Amtrak gave it the sole authority to provide passenger rail service on privately-owned freight lines.
- "Amtrak is unconstitutional": Our government does several things, good and bad, that are not expressly provided for in the Constitution, such as providing Social Security and welfare, as well as carrying out extensive military operations overseas for extended periods without a Congressional declaration of war. A lot of these powers are inferred from what is stated in the Preamble.
- "[The government is] stealing our money in order to [provide Amtrak service]": I do not consider paying taxes as letting the government "steal" my money. I pay taxes with the expectation that the greater good will benefit, and I participate in government decisions to make sure that this is the case. A national rail system is in the general public's best interest.
- Though I have had some delays, my overall experience on Amtrak has been very relaxing and unstressful, and generally on time or early. The quality of our passenger rail system lags far behind other industrialized nations and there's a lot that could be improved with more funding. Having private industry provide passenger rail service would increase fares and probably not lead to better service. The freight railroads left the passenger business partly for this reason in the 1960s.
- I also don't mind my tax dollars going to road maintanence, I drive a car myself. Though roads and highways are primarily a state responsibility, the federal government helps the states out a lot and oversees the Interstate Highway system. My point is that highway and passenger rail funding should be more equitable; that Amtrak should be at least as viable and efficient a mode of transportation as the automobile.

Mr. Kenton,

-Just because everybody else does something doesn't make it right and doesn't mean we should.

-The 1971 legislation is unconstitutional. That's the whole point. Read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. That specifically lists everything that Congress is allowed to do. The Tenth Amendment forbids them from doing anything else. Operating a train system is definitely not one of the powers listed in Article I, Section 8. They cannot infer powers. If they could, that means they could do whatever they want, and the Constitution would be pointless. But that's pretty much what they do anyway.

-Congress does all sorts of unconstitutional things such as Social Security and welfare. Precisely! It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! That's means that it's illegal!
Congress may not

-If you don't mind giving the government your money, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with them taking my money, however. That's theft.