Michigan May Cut Amtrak Subsidies, Yet Still Wants High Speed Rail

The State of Michigan is thinking about cutting subsidies to Amtrak. There is talk of cutting two of Amtrak’s Michigan lines sometime next year, probably around October 1, 2010. Amtrak’s Pere Marquette and Blue Water lines would be cut from Amtrak’s service despite ridership being up since last year’s high fuel prices. “Funding would drop by half to about $3.7 million starting in October under a budget passed by Senate Republicans. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and House Democrats want to reduce the subsidy to about $5.7 million, a 22 percent cut.”*

While ridership is down 7% from last year on the Pere Marquette line (Grand Rapids to Chicago – still up from previous years) the Blue Water Line (Port Huron to Chicago) remains up .5%. It seems wrong to cut two lines for Michigan that many travelers use to get to and from Chicago, especially at a time when the push is on for more rail service and more mass transportation by the State of Michigan and President Barack Obama.

I ride the Blue Water Line from my home town to Chicago annually. Last year the train was packed, more than in recent years when I rode the Blue Water. This was due to last year’s high fuel prices as claimed by Michigan Department of Transportation and by Amtrak officials. From East Lansing to Chicago, the train is usually packed with mostly college students from MSU who get on at that stop. Since a lot of college students use the train to get to Chicago, it doesn’t seem logical to cut the two lines and leave Michigan residents (especially college students at MSU with high tuition costs) with no alternative means of inexpensive mass transportation to Chicago, and back. This would impact tourism both ways.

In a time when our Democrats are shouting green and save the planet, along with a few Republicans, is cutting Amtrak lines really smart? Is cutting these lines the responsible thing to do when Michigan Governor Granholm and Democrats are pushing for high speed rail lines in the state? If ridership is really not enough to keep the lines open without funding from the state, how can the Governor and Democrats call for high speed rail lines in Michigan? Who is going to support the lines? The taxpayers? Of course the burden would fall on the taxpayer. If the state cannot afford to keep the current lines operating now, and are cutting funding due to economic reasons, what makes any sane person think that a high speed rail system to Chicago, with no stops to pickup more passengers along the way, can be supported at all, especially given that high speed rail systems are more expensive to build, operate, and maintain.

“In this time of economic struggle, now more than ever, state government must learn to live with less,” said Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop. While this is a good point, is cutting Amtrak lines smart government or irresponsibility?

“State government has a number of constitutional responsibilities. Providing passenger rail subsidies is not one of them,” policy analyst Ken Braun said. “It is one of the luxuries we should have gotten rid of a long time ago.” Mass transit via an Amtrak train is a luxury? Since when? I can ride from my home town to Chicago and back (5 hours each way) for less than fifty bucks. I can’t drive to Chicago for less than fifty bucks one way, and last years high fuel prices would have cost me plenty if I had driven there.

“We’ll have to see if cutting Amtrak sends a negative message to the U.S. Department of Transportation … ‘We’ll take your free money but we’re not going to invest in anything of our own,’” deputy policy director Tim Fischer said. Well yeah. Of course it sends a negative message, especially when Governor Granholm wants high speed rail in Michigan.

Seems to me that Michigan is totally making the case against high speed rail systems for Michigan by saying that we can’t afford what we have now. If we can’t afford to keep two Amtrak lines open despite rider numbers being up, according to Amtrak, then how can we afford or support high speed rail?

*Source: Battle Creek Inquirer

A Letter From Senator Carl Levin, D-MI

Another Cap and Trade supporter. This is a response to my letter to Carl Levin against Cap and Trade.

Dear Mr. Moline:

Thank you for contacting me regarding global climate change. I appreciate hearing your views on this important topic.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activity is causing it. Scientists tell us we need to act with urgency to reduce the levels of global greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent catastrophic impacts from occurring.

During this century, scientists predict average temperatures could increase between 2 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit above current levels, depending on the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases that continue to be emitted globally. Even small changes in average temperature could lead to extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts and flooding. Other projected future impacts are alarming: portions of countries and entire islands could be lost to rising sea levels, crop yields could significantly decline and water shortages could occur. Worse yet are the impacts that are unknown and for which it is difficult to prepare.

I believe the best way to address global warming is through an effective and enforceable international agreement that binds all nations to reductions in greenhouse gases, including so-called developing nations that are major emitters, such as China and India. It is imperative we find a way to bring these rapidly developing countries and other large emitters into a binding agreement to control greenhouse gas emissions. If we do not get these countries on board, what we do in the U.S. will only have a marginal impact on controlling global greenhouse gas emissions and could lead to U.S.-based companies moving overseas.

While addressing global climate change presents a daunting challenge, it also could present a unique opportunity. A number of studies suggest that investment in clean energy could generate significant new employment opportunities. A June 2009 report released by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that between 1998 and 2007, jobs in clean energy grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent. In Michigan, clean energy jobs grew by 10.7 percent over the same period. By investing in research and development and advanced technologies, we can generate good paying jobs in the manufacturing and technology sectors.

The U.S. Congress has been considering various ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many have recommended a plan where the United States would place limits on, or “cap,” its emissions of greenhouse gases. It would do so by issuing a finite amount of permits, or emission allowances, that allow regulated entities to emit carbon and other greenhouse gases. These emission allowances would be ratcheted down gradually over a number of years. This plan also could include the ability to trade and sell permits, which would potentially reduce the overall cost of the program.

On June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES, H.R.2454) by a vote of 219 to 212. This legislation would establish a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system and also includes energy-related provisions such as renewable electricity standards and energy efficiency requirements.

Title III of ACES would set up a cap-and-trade system designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from covered entities that would include most petroleum and gas producers and importers, electricity generators, large industrial sources, and natural gas local distribution companies. Taken together, it is estimated that these covered entities account for roughly 85 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The cap-and-trade portion of this legislation is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with covered sources by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The World Resources Institute estimates that, with the other provisions of H.R.2454, the potential net greenhouse gas emissions reduction of the bill could range from 28 to 33 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 75 to 81 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act contains several cost-containment mechanisms that attempt to mitigate price increases to consumers and businesses throughout the United States. To moderate energy price increases for electricity, home heating oil and natural gas, allowances would be distributed free of charge to electric distribution companies, local natural gas distribution companies and states. The bill would require these allowances to be used to protect consumers from energy price increases.

To help ensure manufacturers would not face unfair international competition from the cap and trade requirements, allowances would be distributed free of charge to energy-intensive, trade exposed sectors, such as the steel, paper and chemical industries. The bill also would allow sources covered by the cap to purchase credits from uncapped sources that achieve a measurable reduction, avoidance or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions; these credits are commonly referred to as “offsets.” According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis, the inclusion of domestic and international offsets in the bill is expected to reduce the overall costs of the bill by half. ACES also would establish an Allowance Auction Reserve that would release additional allowances into the market in the event of a swift price increase, which would dampen the allowance price and provide a measure of safety from runaway costs to consumers and industry.

Taking into account all of the above cost-containment mechanisms, CBO estimates that the average annual net cost of the cap-and-trade program established by ACES would be $175 per household, when distributed evenly across all income ranges. However, under ACES, proceeds from the cap-and-trade program would be used to help low-income consumers such that these families would see an average annual net benefit of about $40 by 2020.

As the Senate works to address climate change, several factors must be taken into account. Any climate legislation that is enacted must not only significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, but also ensure the protection of consumers and workers, which requires taking into account regional differences that exist throughout the United States. As one of the most significant endeavors undertaken by Congress in decades, I will carefully review any cap-and-trade program or alternative approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

When legislation regarding climate change comes before the Senate, I will be sure to keep your views in mind. Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin

A Letter From Senator Debbie Stabenow, D-MI

I recently wrote my Senator, Debbie Stabenow, D-MI, about global warming and cap and trade. This is her reply. Obviously she is still drinking the Al Gore Kool-Aid. Unfortunately, Michigan’s other Senator, Carl Levin, feels the same way. We must convince our Senators Cap and Trade is bad for America.

Thank you . . .

. . . for contacting me about climate change. I understand your concerns.

While I respect your views, I also recognize the growing scientific consensus about climate change. If left unchecked, the effects of climate change include lower water levels in the Great Lakes, threats to fish and wildlife, diminished ability to grow food crops, and an overall threat to our quality of life. That’s why we need a balanced, common-sense approach to this problem.

As Congress considers climate change legislation, I am working with my colleagues, especially from the Midwest, to ensure that the finished product works for Michigan. If the final legislation does not work for our state, I will not support it.

That is why I have been leading efforts in the Senate to create a Clean Energy Development Authority to provide financing for cutting-edge new technologies and create jobs. This financing is absolutely critical so that we do not trade a dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on foreign technology.

It’s not enough that we simply use green technologies, we have to make them in the United States. A wind turbine is made of over 8,000 individual parts, and all of those parts can be made in Michigan. That’s why I’m working to make green manufacturing a central part of our energy strategy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $2 billion for advanced battery research and manufacturing. It also included a new tax credit to promote the manufacture of renewable energy products.

I believe that by making the right policy choices and the right investments, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that revitalizes Michigan’s economy and creates new jobs.

New energy solutions create new jobs and new industries. We are in the midst of an energy revolution that is creating new opportunities for innovation, investment, and invention. At the same time, we are leaving a cleaner environment for our children, and we are breaking our dangerous addiction to foreign oil.

Because of our strong industrial and agricultural sectors, supported by some of the best research universities in the country, Michigan is in a unique position to lead the nation as we transition to a green energy economy. I will continue to fight for a climate change policy that focuses on creating good-paying jobs and strengthening our economy.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you and your family.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow

United States Senator

DS: es

U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow
The United States Senate • Washington, DC 20510
stabenow.senate.gov

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra

I feel it is very important to share this important legislation by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, Michigan. Any parent that has had issues with their parenting rights being violated by government knows how important this legislation is. Write your elected officials and urge them to support this! Share this with everyone you know and urge them to do the same. Support this right to parenting!

Parents Rights’ Amendment Reaches Milestone
Fri at 2:10pm
100 Members of Congress Cosponsor Grassroots Movement to Ensure Parents’ Freedom to Raise their Children

A Constitutional Amendment introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, to protect the parent-child relationship has reached more than 100 co-sponsors in the House.

“More and more members of Congress and their constituents are recognizing the slow erosion of individual rights posed by the courts, government and international organizations and the threat presented to the parent-child relationship,” Hoekstra said. “This is a grassroots movement fueled by increased awareness about sovereignty and the need to protect rights against government intrusion and international law. It is as simple as preserving parents’ freedom to parent.”

The Parents’ Rights Amendment (H.J.Res.42) would state explicitly in the U.S. Constitution that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit while protecting against abuse and neglect. Threats to the parent-child relationship include potential Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

“A review of federal appellate decisions from 2008 demonstrates that our lower courts are turning away from the traditional Supreme Court standards on parental rights,” said Michael Farris, J.D., president of Parentalrights.org. “We need to act now to protect parental rights before this erosion results in a wholesale repudiation of our traditional American principles.”

Happy 4th of July

Independence Day! Let’s work hard so it isn’t our last!