The Washington Post

pa2012.com is proud to partner with The Washington Post in bringing our originally reported insider political news to a wide audience of decision makers and opinion leaders across the country.

Close it

Kenneth Elder's Blog

Kenneth Elder's Blog

The View From Philly

send to a friend | print | comment

Specter rebukes Sestak’s claims that he came late to Amtrak funding debate

When Arlen Specter sent a request to Joe Biden asking for federal stimulus funds to help repair Pennsylvania’s Amtrak bridges, Joe Sestak criticized the Senator for not advocating for funding sooner. Sestak’s criticisms were included in an Inquirer story that ran last week. Specter says that the claims are unfounded and misleading.

In the Inquirer article, Joe Sestak accuses Specter of being a late convert to funding for Amtrak. The Inquirer quotes Sestak as saying:

“Public transportation infrastructure is critical; that’s why I fought to include an additional $1 million in the transportation appropriations bill specifically for Amtrak. That is also why I was a strong advocate for an insertion of $850 million into the economic-stimulus bill for Amtrak capital improvements, like bridges. However, this was opposed by Arlen Specter, who voted to remove it from the Economic Stimulus Bill as he states on his Web site that ‘My preference would have been John McCain’s proposal, which I voted for, to have the stimulus package of $421 billion in tax cuts alone.’”

Specter’s response, in his own letter to the Inquirer, shot back: “Sestak is entitled to his opinions but not his own facts. I have consistently and successfully advocated for increased funding for Amtrak, particularly in my capacity as a senior member of the Senate appropriations subcommittee on transportation.” He goes on to address the stimulus bill, saying, “During consideration of the economic stimulus bill, for which I provided on of the deciding votes, I worked to include $850 million for Amtrak capital grants, $50 million more than the amount proposed in the House of Representatives.”

It is funny that this point should be debated here, as I remember Specter bringing up his push for funding in Pennsylvania’s transportation infrastructure during an episode of MSNBC’s Hardball. It seems that Specter’s push for Amtrak and other transportation funding in Pennsylvania is in some ways his darling project, one that he both takes pride in and foresees as a great benefit to Pennsylvania commuters. Perhaps this explains his quick and stern rebuke of Sestak’s insinuations, as well as his offense at the perceived injustice of the claims.

share001btn Specter rebukes Sestaks claims that he came late to Amtrak funding debate

September 28, 2009 at 7:32 am

--Kenneth Elder

comments

comments [1] | post a comment

  1. Jon Geeting

    Sep 28th, 2009

    It’s great that transportation is taking such a prominent role in the PA Senate contest. That’s as it should be. Candidate sniping aside, I wish one of them would have the guts to state the obvious – current levels of transit funding are pitiful, ineffective, and need to be beefed up drastically. The federal government subsidizes (yes, subsidizes – highways don’t come close to paying for themselves.) road construction at a rate of 80/20, federal to state contributions. Transit projects get 50/50. The first easiest step to getting better transit is to erase this disparity. Fund transit at 80/20. The heavier lift is going to have to be part of a fresh conversation initiated by less cowardly politicians to reframe the American view of taxes. Politicians love to promise new programs, and the public wants new and better services, but most politicians are loathe to broach the problem that our current tax levels won’t support them. From there, the conversation always moves to what we should cut, and never veers to the politically fraught, but correct, argument that America should have higher taxes. Politicians love to raise revenue in indirect inefficient ways that hide the true cost of projects and programs. Republicans love to demagogue on taxes, promising impossible tax cut after tax cut, ending talk of new programs merely by asking how they can be implemented without having to raise taxes. The honest answer is that you can’t provide new services without new money, and having to raise taxes shouldn’t stop us from creating them. Those taxes fund valuable services that people want! If we want a better, high-speed Amtrak, we have to be willing to pay for it, and politicians have to be willing to give us straight talk if we’re really going to do it.

Leave a Reply


- will not be published


pa2012.com blogs