DBowen/Flickr
In his State of the Union address this week, President Obama spoke enthusiastically about addressing "an aging infrastructure badly in need of repair." As he put it, "Ask any CEO where they'd rather locate and hire -- a country with deteriorating roads and bridges, or one with high-speed rail and Internet, high-tech schools, self-healing power grids."
Presumably, the president thought the answer was obvious, and proposed a "Fix-It-First" program, talked up for years by transportation policy wonks. As Matt Yglesias explained, "[P]oliticians and real-estate developers like to open brand new roads with fun ribbon-cutting ceremonies and new subdivisions. Finding money to actually maintain roads we already have is less appealing. Consequently, we get too many miles of road (and too much sprawl), but the roads suck. The fix-it-first concept is to flip this and make sure we're maximizing the value of our existing roads before we build new ones."
Plenty of Republicans, including a guy named Mitt Romney, used to think this was a smart approach to infrastructure spending, but then again, Republicans used to like cap-and-trade, the Dream Act, and an individual health care mandate, too.
But even putting that aside, the next question is whether Obama's infrastructure plans have any chance at all on Capitol Hill. On the surface, there's little reason for optimism -- as I've written more times that you've cared to read, we've basically been able to borrow money for free to make real investments in this area, creating jobs and boosting growth, but the GOP has refused.
Neil Irwin isn't convinced all hope is lost. With the private sector supporting new infrastructure spending, and even small government conservatives wanting "quality roads in their districts," Irwin thinks there's a chance.
First, Republicans have seen electoral damage by their image as an obstruction-at-all-cost party, losing the White House and seats in both houses of Congress in the 2012 elections. Cantor himself delivered a speech last week aimed at presenting a more pragmatic face to the party. Second, the president has been re-elected, so there is no longer the odd dynamic where bipartisan dealmaking could make Obama look more statesmanlike and help his re-election chances. [...]
In that sense, this is a great test of whether divided democracy can work, and whether Republicans can come to the table to govern. One can easily imagine a deal: Democrats get their new infrastructure spending, and Republicans insist on a structure that requires private sector lenders to be co-investors in any projects, deploying money based on its potential return rather than where the political winds are tilting.
I wish I was as optimistic.
The problem isn't with Irwin's thesis. On the contrary, he's entirely correct -- this is a perfect time to prioritize infrastructure investments. It would improve commerce; it would help the economy; it would benefit red and blue states alike; and since these investments are going to have to be made eventually anyway, we might as well do it while investors are effectively throwing free money at us.
But the argument that progress is possible is predicated on the notion that congressional Republicans are far gone, but they're not that far gone. They've moved sharply to the right, but they're still able to recognize the basics of public and economic necessities.
I'm not convinced that's true. In fact, I'm largely convinced of the opposite -- if an idea isn't a tax cut, a spending cut, or an effort to curtail women's reproductive rights, Republicans just aren't interested. There's nothing in "Atlas Shrugged" about repairing bridges, improving runways and rail, or expanding high-speed Internet access, ergo, it's not something conservative lawmakers are interested in.
Indeed, I assume it's only a matter of time before someone in the GOP leadership insists taxpayer-financed roadways create an unhealthy dependency on the public sector, and in the name of American "freedom," Republicans will no longer tolerate the White House's socialistic ambitions.
Leave a Comment:
Get rid of useless, wasteful spending and we will have plenty of money for infastructure. And no, im not talking about S.S. and medicare.
Oil subsidies
Get rid of tax exemptions for business and the wealthy while you are at it.
As to wasted money. The so called waste is a return on investment for campaign contributions. It is also a means of support for elected officials to hand to their useless in-laws!
As we all know SSI is self-funded even though the fund gets robbed by congress. Medicare/medicaid pay for themselves by keeping down hospital stays.
One of businesses biggest expenses is providing healthcare. The result of private insurance is a broken system that reaps huge profits for denying proper care.
Hey, maybe some enterprising person could ask the President how making 82% of the Bush tax cuts permanent for 98% of taxpayers jives with his call for infrastructure? Pre-school programs? Giving in on earned benefit cuts? Etc?
How about the press? Or say, somebody like Steve Benen?
Or the 300 tanks Congress is trying to buy the Army, even though the Army says their existing tank fleet is more than enough. Wish we as a country could have a bottom up review of all forms of spending without it devolving into a political slugfest or gridlock, but that's not gonna happen while Republicans see defense spending as the only infrastructure/jobs program worth funding.
Then what are you refering to? Your team is certainly unwilling to suggest any meaningful cuts.
Are you referring to the 300 M1A1 Abrahms along with F-16's we sent to Egypt to help the Muslim Brotherhood?. Yeah, Republicans didnt vote for that.
I was referring to the US Army being required to have 300 additional tanks, even though the US Army does not want them, does not need them, and can't maintain the ones they already have. Foreign aid packages are a whole other baliwick and should be among the first items cut so we can take care of our fellow Americans first.
Indeed, I assume it's only a matter of time before someone in the GOP leadership insists taxpayer-financed roadways create an unhealthy dependency on the public sector, and in the name of American "freedom," Republicans will no longer tolerate the White House's socialistic ambitions.
Nice to see a good healthy dose of reality here at the Maddow Blog.
Yes well the republicans do make it easy to follow their illogical thought process.
We already know that anything Obama is for they are against. I mean the constant refusal to accept ideas that they themselves once proposed is a dead give away.
It's not just the GOP in this case, folks.
Reid giving up on filibuster reform was pretty disappointing. And expected. And now they're paying for it with Hagel.
Even if business agrees with infrastructure improvements, it still comes down to who pays for it. The wealthy do not want to pay more taxes and Republicans will want to shift the burden to the middle class. The large states that need the most infrastructure improvements are faced with large deficits and debts. Considering that most Republican support comes from rural areas, there is little or no real incentive for them to vote for infrastructure improvements. The Dems need to steal the suburban vote from Republicans to get the Congress to pass a bill for improvements. But financing will be the impediment.
Mike, you know the Repubs response. Well the middle class is the ones who use the roads and bridges the most so let them pay for it.
The wealthy have othere modes of travel.
There are very wealth suburbs around every city and the people who live there need roads, highways and expressways to get into the city to work. Many of these people do not use public transportation. Increasing the gas tax is not an option at this time and there is a limited amount of federal and state money for roads. That does not leave many options for borrowing money. Most large states cities and towns are doing triage and fixing the worst streets. But that leaves other roads that get worse and more expensive to repair at the later date. The same logic applies to bridges and other infrastructure. The longer we wait, the more expensive it gets.
See Mike, there you go again with "logic & reason" as though that has anything to do with why the GOTP won't support the proposal....
And just like blocking Hagel's vote/sensible gun laws/the sequestration/everything this President has proposed - this too is so NOT going to happen....
One wonders what Obama's presidency would have looked like without GOP obstruction.
As a nation we'd probably have a real robust recovery going on, where every boat was being lifted by the tide....
We did the WPA and CCC as well as the TVA during the Depression. These programs put people to work and improved the infrastructure. The Republicans using the same arguments they used against those programs. We are doing reruns of the Great Depression because people have forgotten history or are ignoring it.
Let's make everything a Grand Gesture. That way, the Republicans can get their publicity and the rest of us can drive on safer roads and bridges.
I honestly thought that some of this was supposed to be covered by the stimulus package back in '09. These type of projects definitely fit the "shovel-ready" label.
They were, Skip. One Google search and I found the amount of stimulus, where it was sent, the percentage breakdown, and our President's honest feeling that the projects could have gone faster. Tax payers want to see results.
That there are more projects cannot surprise anyone. But do you believe our current Congress would allow more stimulus under Obama, especially since the last one worked so well?
Skip
My city La Habra Heights, CA benefited from stimulus infrastructure money. And it's very conservative city. But when the main thoroughfare through the city need repair, it needs repair. I am glad I have a safe road to travel. I wish the Republican members of Congress could see it the same way my city did.
NeedMoreCoffee,
I also saw the stats with all the breakdowns too. It just seemed that the $68 Billion designated for Transportation and Infrastructure (from Recovery.gov) would have been a little bigger piece of the pie. We do need bridges and roads and other transportation projects repaired/expanded and I thought that would be a direct economic impact with all the construction and related jobs.
Some of the tax credits and "making work pay" payouts ($235 Billion combined) were nice but I just thought that sustained work (and paychecks) on roads and bridges would give us a little more bang for the buck - stimulus wise.
As for future stimulus, I do not think Congress (Republicans of course) will go for it. In the SOTU speech he mentioned that his plans/proposals would not add "one dime to the deficit" - which I think will be the sticking point for the right. How will these be paid for.
Let us hope, Skip, that they might be paid for by other means than striping the least of our population.
They'll be paid for the same way any investment is paid for, by giving a return more than the initial investment. In other words, they will improve the economy enough that the increase will be taxed enough to pay for it.
Paul Krugman's sourness aside, I thought the SOTU was Obama's agenda for the next four years, not this year. There was barely a passage in it that can't be used by Democrats in Congressional campaigns next year. It may even have been crafted for that purpose. Get Dems back in the saddle and most of it will get done.
Let's spend some money on "Basic Research" and invent the Flux Capacitor. Then we won't need roads. (Of course, there is still the deLorean shortage to deal with)
Get the NCC 1701's transporter and we wouldn't even need DeLoreans...
Are we forgetting the instantaneous transmission of matter by thought control? Solves all problems.
Wooo, would my thoughts control your matter? Or would there be passwords or something...
:)
You would have to be a psychic warrior.
Yup...
"Fix-it-first"; get rid of the Republicans in office.
This is a serious matter, and the GOP want to see people die on crumbling bridges.
... in other people's districts.
Yeah, like the Democratic district of Minneapolis. Republican governor Tim Pawlentey cut MNDOT's funding for infrastructure inspection and replacement. Of course, that particular bridge on I35W was found structurally deficient as early as 1990 with nothing done until its collapse.
I do not see a blog about the Pre-K discussion (Feb. 14 show) so here's my 2 cents about the issue:
Providing early childhood enrichment to all children is fine as far as that goes, but it's not the key to academic success that's being touted. Findings from two separate reports by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the federal agency that oversees the Head Start program indicate that the gains from programs like Head Start disappear by third grade.
the answer is "NO". republicans are not willing in any way to allow the black president to appear presidential. So no, obstruction all the way. Policies and the economy be damned.
That's racist.
Yes it is and someone should tell the Republicans to stop it!
Republicans will treat infrastructure improvements the same way they treated Sandy relief - by saying 'If it is needed, fine, what do you want to cut to pay for it?' The fact that restoring and enhancing the nation's infrastructure reaps such benefits for the 1% is not good enough - they also want it not to cost the 1% ANYTHING.
You live in N.M.?
No, I am from the Northeast. I assume the cute little one pictured is yours.
She's the future, and my grandkid..
Before anything else, make American airports easier to navigate and try to reduce the amount of delays. Pushing airports to test more modern monitoring systems, expanding boarding areas and even making airports less depressing can bring in billions in investment and advance the cause of better transportation in the United States. When you go to Dubai, Heathrow (Terminal 5), Munich and even Seoul, you see open, clean, spacious and relaxing airports, making journeys more relaxed and comfortable for all. It can also improve the economy by streamlining transportation and making people more flexible! It is also the only current (bold) transportation fix that does make economic sense. OK, fixing roads can also make economic sense and improve the economy by speeding things up, but overhauling a whole sector of transportation by encouraging it to improve its basic tools will be felt by the next generations. As for high-speed rail, there are some lines that operate (the "ACELA" comes up to mind), and costs may halt some of the projects in those cash-strapped times. However, infrastructure is a DEFINITELY important subject to talk about, especially since the rewards on the long-term may be beneficial for the United States.
Infrastructure includes high speed rail. If it moves people or freight, it's infrastructure.
I hear you, but the immediate economic benefit of HSR are not specifically present. Just improving airports can improve the transportation of some freight...
Heathrow??? Really??? That place is a disaster! If your connection doesn't leave from the same terminal you came in on, you better allow for several hours to make the connection, and hope that there isn't a long line at the security check point.
And even if you do come in at the same terminal you leave from, if you happen to be somewhat mobile challenged for whatever reason, baggage, little kids, a wheelchair, there is a good chance you won't know what gate you leave from in time to get there.
Air freight is a tiny fraction of tonnage moved in this country, less than 1%. About 33% moves by truck, and 47% moves by rail. Dropping big money on airports merely to improve air freight doesn't make much sense. USPS, UPS, and Fedex might like it, as would seafood fans in the middle of the country, but there are better ways to spend infrastructure money.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/publications/effects_of_freight_movement/chapter02.cfm
Not sure how the breakdown is for passenger miles, but the vast majority of miles traveled has got to be by car, mostly for daily commuting. HSR would be more energy efficient than air travel, and for shorter routes faster than air.
Key-riste people, wake up. We have a $2.2T infrastructure deficit in this country. And we have millions of unemployed that have the skill set to repair this same infrastructure. Why are we incapable of putting the two together? Oh, I know, because we're "broke". And grandkids.
We're willing to let the planet melt around us. Because we're "broke". And you know, grandkids.
Please learn the difference between a sovereign currency issuer (US, UK, Japan, Australia, etc) and a currency user (households, US states, the entire Eurozone). And the difference between private and (sovereign) public debt.
What would you rather pass on to your "grandkids"? A $1M mortgage, that is now underwater by 30%, crumbling infrastructure, and melting plant? Or a $1M Treasury Bond, high-speed rail, and active public policy that is working on reversing the effects of climate change? The former is ignored while we hyperventilate about the latter. It's insane.
And it's even reinforced by Rachel. I cringe every time I see her commercial about China being being able to "afford" all this and we can't? She says it doesn't "feel right". That's because it's not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bXpOUYrr1c
She's being a wee bit snarky, no need to cringe.
If you want to end government waste the first place to start is campaign finance reform. We MUST take money out of politics. It's the only way we will ever get an equal playing field. We elect governors and senators, but we don't elect the people they put into positions of power because they contributed to a persons campaign. I work in State gov't and it is pathetic what goes on following a campaign. All kinds of people come out of the woodwork, are given jobs they aren't qualified for and there goes the tax payer dollars. There is no accountability, cause who is going to bite the hand that feeds them? It's corruption, corruption, corruption.
I agree with you, Steve. They are that far gone, mostly. And here's why it won't happen in today's GOP-- even if they do agree that it's good and will be popular with voters, they won't want to share credit with Obama and Democrats. Rather, they will calculate that in 2017 the work will still be there to do, and then they and President Rubio can get ALL the credit, maybe even paying for it by slashing social spending "because we have to pay for it somehow!"
The GOTP believe that any obstruction to the Presidents policies will make him look bad, it didn't work in his first term, but hey, it has to work eventually, right?
Where trolls can vent their hate! Welcome Trolls!
http://radicalsinc.newsvine.com/
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151250549846360&set=a.51090526359.74773.511826359&type=1&theater
A link to Facebook is not a comment. What is it supposed to be about? Not everyone is a member of Facebook.
you are a stupid @!$%#
you are a stupid vagina
vagaina vagina vagina v vagina vagina v v vagina vagina vagina and rhymes with bunt
Focusing on repairing our long-neglected infrastructure is extremely important, but let's not inflate the impact of these jobs on families and the overall economy. These jobs overwhelmingly go to men. When it comes to American families, women are co- or sole-supporters of families. Men today are rarely sole supporters, and it certainly isn't unusual for men to fail to provide for their own children at all. The well-being of the country depends on the well-being of families. We need to focus on family-supporting jobs for women. Today, we simply worsen conditions for them.
It should be obvious what the repub response to this will be. We should privatize our road system and sell off those bridges to people who will charge tolls. It's what Gov. Goodhair in TX has been pushing for the last eleven years, and to a large extent he has succeeded to the detriment of TX's infrastructure.
There is a great example of road privatization gone bad, to reinforce your point: Italy. The national motorways corporation, which mostly operated Southern routes, was sold to private interests (most notably the Benetton family) in order to "pay down the debt" back in the 1990's. The result? Roads in Southern Italy have been named "worst in Europe" in a recent poll. Even better, some of those roads have been compared to roads in Ethiopia and Ghana...
Geez! It's all bad theater. You have the GOP ignoring reality and cleaving to their antedeluvian 'platform' with John McCain striving to be the national spokescodger for senile dementia and his buddy Lins as the evil, bitchy queen wanting nothing more than to whip up an opera cape out of your Dalmatian puppies and the rest of us wondering why nothing constructive is coming forward.