Americans want more trains
Recommended Stories
Re: “Washington’s ears still plugged,” Feb. 1
Since passenger train improvements have enjoyed bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, we reject your suggestion that White House unveiling of passenger-train Recovery Act grants constitutes turning a deaf ear to the recent Massachusetts election.
Indeed, polls — and Amtrak’s rising ridership — show that Americans want more trains. Put “travelers” atop your list of “those who are quite pleased by the projects.”
The majority of dollars will go to upgrade existing trains, producing tangible service improvements within one or a few years. At the other end of the spectrum, our children may look back and thank those who pushed the California and Florida very-high-speed projects. Very high energy prices threaten the future of short-distance air service.
Ross B. Capon
President and chief executive officer National Association of Railroad Passengers
Washington
Don’t forget where the tea parties came from
Re: “At one year, a mass political movement, not a conspiracy,” Feb. 2
What most media outlets forget that the tea party was the idea of Rick Santelli, a CNBC host who, after being outraged by a proposed plan for the government to buy bad mortgages, said that people would rise up and enact a modern day “tea party” like protest. I’m not sure how liberals put pieces together saying this is Astroturf, especially given that Santelli’s off the cuff remark started the whole movement in the first place.
Danna McAllister
Chantilly, Va.
Tax cuts are a bad idea, period
Re: “A speech without nothing for everybody,” Jan. 29
As usual,when The Examinereditorializesabout President Obama’s policies, the paper always gets itwrong — and that deliberately so.In youreditorialI certainlycommiseratewith youand yourreaders that Obama, as is by now well known, only talks, and you and your readership should be pleased with that because, in fact, Obama pretty much does and has done as you like it.
It is wrong for you to say thatthepresident’s health care bill”puts federalbureaucratsbetween patients and their doctor.”But even ifit were so, why would the American public prefer that the present system puts the insurance companies between the patientand the doctor? Obviously the freeze on spending, praised by yourpaperday in and day out, is not the way to go, because what the economy needs in an eraof no investment in consumer goodsproduction, layoffs, and downsizing of companieswithouteffective demand for their products, is deficit spending, not deficit contraction.And all those tax cuts, to both the rich andsmall businesses is also a bad idea because the cuts will not affect employmentinall those smallbusinesseswithout the demand for their product.And please take it to heart: It is not the small-business sector that is responsible for the majority of employment in this country — that’s only a mythpopularized by the US Chamber of Commerce and all those who like what and how youeditorialize.Shame on you.
Ralf Hertwig
Washington
