The Issue:Why isn’t Rick Santorum voting to keep jobs in Pennsylvania?
|
Rick claims to support Amtrak just 13 days before he voted not to restore Amtrak funding |
Why isn’t Rick Santorum voting to keep jobs in Pennsylvania?
According to Rick Santorum’s website (http://santorum.senate.gov), “Pennsylvanians work hard to provide for their families and make the Commonwealth a vital and competitive contributor to our national economies. I will continue to work to pass legislation that promotes economic growth and creates job opportunities for Pennsylvanians and Americans across the country.”
Apparently, his work hasn’t added up to much over the past 12 years because Pennsylvania has lost almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs and ranked 40th among states in new job creation, while over 300,000 Pennsylvanians remain unemployed.
Here’s one recent example of why. About 3,000 Pennsylvania jobs depend on continued federal funding for Amtrak – funding not included in the Bush-Cheney 2006 budget. And Rick Santorum is having a hard time squaring his passionate support for the Bush-Cheney agenda with the needs of Pennsylvania families and communities.
His mouth says “yes,” but his votes say “no, not really.”
President Bush’s Budget message this past February said:
“The Administration will not propose continued Federal subsidies for Amtrak. On its current course, Amtrak’s performance will decline and its infrastructure will deteriorate even with well over $1 billion in annual Federal appropriations. With no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy,which would likely lead to the elimination of inefficient operations and the reorganization of the railroad through bankruptcy procedures.”
On March 3, Santorum appeared with Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) on Meet the Press, saying that elimination of federal subsidies of Amtrak was “not acceptable” and he would fight it. Here’s the transcript [Ellipses in Original]:
“Mr. Russert: Senator Santorum, your Republican colleague from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, said the president’s elimination of federal subsidies for Amtrak is unacceptable.
Senator Santorum: Yeah.
Mr. Russert: Do you share that view?
Senator Santorum: I would agree with—it’s not...
Mr. Russert: So you’re going to fight it?
Senator Santorum: It’s not acceptable to me, either. I think what the president has suggested, you know, is not going to pass, number one. Number two, I think what he has been putting forward is that Amtrak has to be more efficient. And I would agree with Joe 100 percent on the Northeast Corridor and probably the West Coast. The problem is, you’ve got a lot of other lines that are horribly unprofitable, and they’re in a political conundrum, which is if you eliminate those lines and they don’t have the support to get the money they need--as long as you keep that--lines, they run huge deficits. So it’s--somebody has got to start to make tough decisions at Amtrak, and I’m going to certainly encourage that to occur.
Mr. Russert: But you’re going to fight the president?
Sen. Santorum: I’ll fight him on that money, yes.”
Just 13 days later, on March 16, Santorum voted against a Byrd (D-WV) amendment to the 2006 Congressional Budget Resolution to preserve Amtrak funding by closing corporate tax loopholes. That would have saved Amtrak and its 3,000 Pennsylvania employees from budget cuts. But with Rick Santorum’s help, the Byrd amendment failed 46-52.
Amazingly, only 12 days later – on March 25 – Rick Santorum has an opinion piece published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, where he argues for continued federal funding of Amtrak:
“Keeping the rail lines open and the trains running should be one of Congress’ priorities in the upcoming budget discussion. At a time when Amtrak is setting ridership records and as congestion at our airports and on the highways continues to increase, it would be a grave mistake to cut the federal funds that keep Amtrak operating.
“President George W. Bush recently proposed cutting Amtrak funding and would provide $360 million to maintain existing commuter services along the Northeast Corridor. Without substantial government funds or other intervening action, Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy and shut down all of its services, leaving millions of riders and thousands of communities without access to the essential and convenient transportation that Amtrak provides. In addition, it is critical to Pennsylvania’s workers, businesses, visitors, and most specifically to the more than 3,000 Amtrak employees that we do not decrease funding for Amtrak.”
That sounds great. Unfortunately, when it came time to choose between corporate tax loopholes and those 3,000 Pennsylvania jobs, Santorum chose to keep the loopholes that benefit so many of his generous campaign donors.
Thirteen of Amtrak’s 41 railroad routes run through Pennsylvania – carrying over 14.5 million passengers in 2004 alone. So it’s easy enough for Rick Santorum to say that continuing funding for Amtrak “should be one of Congress’ priorities.” But when it came to fulfill his promise to “fight” for the money Amtrak needs, he turned tail.
When you expose what he really did, it makes you wonder, “Why is Rick Santorum voting for corporate tax loopholes over a vital investment in Pennsylvania jobs?”