Suppose I offered you an investment deal to get on board with a company that has lost a billion dollars a year since 1971 and has no prospects of making a profit in the future. It has overpaid workers, its equipment is run down, most of what it sells is at a loss, and the company is in debt up to its eyeballs. Would you take this great offer? Not likely, unless you were a fool. Well, why does the United States Congress keep appropriating billions of dollars to this company--billions that belong to the taxpayers? This company is your national railroad--Amtrak. You did know that you already owned it, didn't you--or does it own you?

What's going on? You see, the left likes to tell the rest of us how to live, and the left insists that we take trains instead of more convenient and cost-effective methods of transportation. Why? Well, when the left wants something in this country, there are three things that you can count on. First, it will help them to feel good. Second, it won't make any sense. Third, it will cost a lot of money. Amtrak fits that bill.

If you would like to know more, read this: CFO Magazine - Is This Any Way to Run a Railroad?

Here are some excerpts from the article:

Last February, for example, the White House announced it intended to cut off Amtrak's billion-dollar-plus annual subsidy � which covers about half the railroad's total budget � unless the carrier agreed to a radical restructuring. Both the House and the Senate defied the Administration, calling for subsidies ranging from $1.17 billion to $1.45 billion for 2006....

Whatever the scale, Amtrak employees appear to be doing just fine. Based on the carrier's most recent figures, the average worker at the railroad receives $70,000 in annual compensation. Moreover, certain work rules � some call them featherbedding � pump up the number of employees required to perform specific tasks. ...Cutting worker-related costs won't be easy, though. Smith must deal with 14 different unions and 26 bargaining units.

The on-time performance on many of Amtrak's overland lines hasn't helped matters. Overall, Amtrak's 13 long-distance lines (excluding the Northeast Corridor) recorded a 43.5 percent on-time rate for the first nine months of the railroad's 2005 fiscal year.

In May, Standard & Poor's placed the railroad's BBB- rating on CreditWatch, with negative implications. "Without the [government] subsidy, the numbers wouldn't support the current credit rating," notes S&P analyst Lisa Jenkins. A drop of just two notches would reduce Amtrak's debt rating to non-investment-grade, driving up the cost on future borrowings. That's worrisome, considering the railroad paid $203 million last year just to cover the interest expense on the mountain of debt taken on during the previous administration.

"We can do a reasonable rate of return, but it's not going to be a rate of return that most people understand," (CFO David Smith) insists. "A large component of the return is going to be the social good we do."

Smith shakes his head. "I tell you, it's a hell of a way to run a railroad."

What’s next? President Bush wants to push Amtrak into bankruptcy, and end its rail services. He proposes to set aside $360 million for a new train system to someday run only in the country’s northeast corridor. Bush wants to â€Å“privatizeâ€ÂÂ� the rest of Amtrak by selling its assets, and let multiple corporations make profits as they see fit.

The leading House Democrat on transportation, Minnesota Rep. Jim Oberstar, predicts a â€Å“test of wills.â€ÂÂ� â€Å“This is seriousâ€ÂÂ� he said. â€Å“They really intend to eliminate Amtrak.â€ÂÂ� Said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ),â€ÂÂ� They’re about to run Amtrak off a cliff…. We’re gonna fight it, and we’ll see who blinks first.â€ÂÂ�

Posted at 10:00 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 696 words, total size 5 kb.