A Stitch in Haste

The directors of Amtrak, all of whom were appointed by President Bush, favor reducing and eventually ending taxpayer subsidies for the great American experiment in naked socialism.

Amtrak president David Gunn, meanwhile, did not favor reform.

Of course, a business' board of directors outranks its president.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Mr. Gunn.

As I've blogged repeatedly, a business makes money by giving customers what they want, need and are willing to pay for. A business that loses money is not. Therefore, the notion that Amtrak "needs" or "deserves" a billion dollar annual taxpayer subsidy because the railroad is "too important" is an insolent contradiction in terms. Amtrak loses money because people don't use it. If they don't use it, then it's not needed. If it's not needed, then it does not deserve taxpayer subsidies.

By contrast, the very fact that the Northeast Corridor can be profitably spun off is proof that it should be spun off. The remaining lines should either be forced to operate without subsidies or be shut down.

Yet Congress, in its pork-laden mania, continues to assert that Amtrak is somehow "vital" and that their districts will "suffer" without Amtrak or that their states "deserve" publicly underwritten routes running through them. Not to mention the mawkish "public interest" types who can't understand why people prefer a four-hour plane ride to a three-day railroad excursion.

In the end, Amtrak serves as a microcosm of the entire government tax-and-spend phenomenon: Crass politics versus basic economics. Common carrier versus common sense.

Which means that the odds aren't good, even with the Amtrak deck stacked in favor of those seeking reform.

More thoughts at An Inclination to Criticize.