OldPoleBurner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In this case, I would ask them to quit spending
> so much of the truly limited resources available
> to government, on what amounts to personal voter
> bribes; instead diverting them back to where they
> belong - the "General Welfare". In other words,
> putting them back towards the legitimate purposes
> of government as outlined in the Preamble to the
> Constitution. Then we might have enough coroners
> to go around, as well as adequate police
> protections and public infrastructures.
>
> Sadly however, as long as enough of us keep voting
> for their own personal benefit and not for the
> greater good, being so easily bribed with gov't
> goodies; -- town councils and congresses will have
> absolutely no need whatever, to actually listen to
> any citizen

So does Metrolink represent an expenditure for the "general welfare" or is it as you describe "a personal interest bribe?" Because if no public funds were spent to construct and operate the Metrolink trains, the service would not exist and this incident would never have happened.

I am a public transportation employee. I became a public transportation employee because I wanted to work in profession which made cities better places to live. So does my desire to see increased investment in public transportation result in "a personal interest bribe" or is it consistent with my overall desire to have public policies benefit the "general welfare."

There were no railroads when the US Constitution was written. However, local, state and federal governments have financed freight and passenger railroad projects ever since the railroads' earliest days. If publically funds for railroads were not found to be Constitutional, certainly there would be no Metrolink.