I think a residency is something that is much drooled over but in effect, I think a long-term one would be difficult. Personally I find that the more I have to do, the more I do. That sounds redundant. What I mean is that I am most productive when I have multiple things on my plate; when I don't have enough time to dick around. On the surface it sounds like heaven but I know my personality. I feel like I would waste a lot of time. Admittedly, if I wasted 20 hours of a 40-hour week the other 20 would still be spent on poetry, theoretically, which is more than I (probably) do now. This may be one of those things I can't truly speak on til I've experienced it (ha! When! If ever!). The Amtrak residency seems like an ideal amount of time to maintain drive and focus.

I think to be a writer all you have to do is write. The rest are trappings and ego-strokes. The rest are ways that poets(or just plain writers) use to judge each other. It takes more, yeah, to be a good writer but it doesn't take things like residencies, grants, any of that jazz. Those are more like the rewards, if you want them and if you're doing it right. They are recognition of talent, but they do not mean yours is the only or the best talent, and the lack of them does not mean you lack talent. (Or so I tell myself... ;) )

I will say that good MFA programs will cover tuition and/or provide a stipend. Were I to pursue an MFA (a long term plan indeed but maybe not impossible ) I would not go to a school that would require me to go into debt. I think that's ridiculous. An MFA is ultimately in many ways a frivolous degree. (Sorry, MFAs.) It will not help you get a job, at least not a job that would allow you to pay back any student loans. For me personally obtaining an MFA would actually knock me out of my career path and would probably make it substantially difficult to return to it. You try explaining to an interviewer that you just decided to take 2-3 years off for a completely unrelated degree. Those years off would cause my experience and knowledge to become outdated and significantly less valuable. An MFA would probably cause me to lose value - at least, in the world in which I currently exist. (This post is getting too long; I have been thinking too much about this lately.)

I see your point that subsidizing poets & writers and allowing them to merely "exist" and "create" without necessarily having to "produce" or generate returns is a form of welfare. Jobs are absolutely better, though I have misgivings just typing that. Let's say: please don't take that statement to an extreme. Jobs are better, but it doesn't mean I would advocate for art's extinction if it meant everyone was employed. A world without art and full of jobs: I think it would be a gray hell. I think we would be drones.

But instead of demanding or seeking a subsidy via a residence, grant, or other similar opportunity, I think that the wise choice is to support oneself in the daytime, and pursue the passion in the downtime. It's a more sustainable, reliable approach.

I completely agree with the distinction between workshop and residency. A workshop is a class; a residency doesn't guarantee any kind of feedback or learning experience, doesn't even guarantee that you'll have a mentor or another poet/writer around to bounce ideas off of.

If I had an MFA and were offered a residency well yes I'd take it; you'd be a bit of a fool not to. But if I were offered one today and had to give up my job it would be easy to turn down.

You might enjoy the blog post I have drafted, coming up in a week or so. It will discuss why National Poetry Month sucks, and compares writers to musicians. It's currently pretty opinionated. May end up toning it down.

Edit: As for transiberian, <s> ugh but yeah, then I'd actually have to get a passport and like, leave the country </s> And as for MFA programs, I've got my eye on Texas.