Secondly, go read the actual source cited by that Economist blog post. It's another blog post: Yes - I'm quite aware of the original source, I went and found t

Secondly, go read the actual source cited by that Economist blog post. It's another blog post: Yes - I'm quite aware of the original source, I went and found the Economist piece after finding the GreaterGreatWashington post, because I felt it added more interesting reading and discussion. For "resource consumption", the blogger found a study that attributed the entire cost of our military presence in the gulf to oil prices, simply averaging the military budget across oil prices per barrel. We are there as part of the Carter Doctrine, which states that our security depends on access to cheap oil. This is not just dug up by a pro-Amtrak blog post to make a point. This is a stated national policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine I am not anti-Amtrak, but I am anti-oversimplified-arguments and anti-demonizing-viewpoints. A counterpoint from Cato, which I also do not buy outright Agreed. My hat goes off to you for the Cato link, even though they drive me up the wall. Bonus link "Help Passenger Rail by Privatizing Amtrak - Cato Institute" - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa419.pdf http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa419.pdf