Amtrak off track

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Nov 29, 2004

The plaintive, mournful wail of a train whistle has been replaced by howls coming from Amtrak officials. They cry that the government- subsidized passenger railroad will go down the tubes if it doesn't get more money from the taxpayers. What got them going this time was a report from the Transportation Department's inspector general, Kenneth Mead, that said continued deferral of maintenance on the part of Amtrak "brings Amtrak closer to a major point of failure on the system, but no one knows where or when such a failure will occur."

That's the kind of finding that would seem to make Congress and Amtrak officials take notice. It didn't much faze Amtrak president David Gunn, though. He rejected an idea floated by Mead that the financially troubled passenger service consider reworking its budget to reflect the $1.2 billion level of funding Congress approved earlier this month. In a letter to Mead, Gunn insisted it was his duty to inform his board of directors and others, presumably Congress, "of the minimum federal funding required for a safe, reliable operation." We agree with him on that point but don't see how the latter renders the former impossible. After requesting what he considers minimum funding to properly run his railroad and having that cut by Congress, Gunn has no choice but to go back over his budget and prioritize spending to reflect reality.

Since becoming head of the rail service in 2002, Gunn has implemented a program of cost savings and capital improvements, but has had to defer many maintenance projects because of a lack of funding. Mead's report, as well as Gunn's letter, point out that those deferrals are catching up with the system and that the situation is becoming critical.

We agree with Sen. John McCain, a longtime critic of Amtrak, that the service should focus on short, profitable routes and restructure or abandon unprofitable ones. "If Amtrak won't follow this strategy," he said in a written statement, "then it is the responsibility of Amtrak's Board of Directors, the secretary of transportation, and Congress to make it happen."

That's where the plan hits a snag -- in Congress. Amtrak officials are caught between a rock and a hard place in trying to restructure long-distance routes: if they cut service to some areas, they could lose the support of representatives from those areas; if they don't cut service, they don't have enough money to maintain infrastructure and operating costs.

Perhaps it's time for Congress to look at Amtrak as a business rather than a sop to folks back home. It will take some difficult choices, but Congress and Amtrak must stop trying to provide service to all regions of the country and focus on where the service can be self-sustaining.

Throwing away money in failed drug war

During a visit to Cartagena, Colombia, last week, President Bush promised Colombian President Alvaro Uribe the United States would continue sending military aid to that nation to help curtail the amount of cocaine Colombia exports. We've always been troubled by the link between the drug war and Colombia's 40-year-old insurgency. Originally, Plan Colombia, the program under which U.S. aid is sent to Colombia, limited the use of U.S. military aid to drug eradication and other efforts to stem the flow of cocaine to U.S. cities.

In recent years, however, the line between the civil war and the drug war have become blurred as rebels sold their services to drug dealers to finance the insurgency.

At least as troubling, though, is the fact that the $3.3 billion spent on Plan Colombia since its inception in 2000 hasn't stemmed the flow of cocaine. In the past few years U.S. and Colombian soldiers have participated in coca defoliation missions that have cut the acreage devoted to growing the plant in half. But the defoliation has spread coca cultivation to other parts of Colombia, complicating eradication efforts. And those efforts haven't made a noticeable difference in the drug's availability in the United States.

U.S. drug war efforts in Colombia and elsewhere will continue to yield marginal results as long as the federal government continues to ignore economics. When the supply of drugs is limited by prohibition, prices jump due to the increased risks involved in supplying them. Higher prices attract more players into the market, which sometimes results in violence as dealers literally battle for market share. An end of the drug war would remove the profit, and thus the violence, from the drug trade.

And in a country that has long prided itself on its dedication to individual liberty, by what right does government forbid the use of certain products, if such use doesn't infringe on the rights of others? It's time for the federal government to take a fresh look at the resources expended on the failed drug war and decide if that's the wisest use for them.

Coming home after nearly 10 years

Belatedly fulfilling President Bill Clinton's 1995 pledge to bring U.S. troops home from Bosnia in a year, the U.N. Security Council voted Nov. 22 to turn over peacekeeping duties in Bosnia to the European Union. That will allow the 1,000 American troops as well as those from our NATO allies in the country to return home -- finally.