The possibility of inflation v very real improvements to National Infrastructure. Sounds like a good risk to take.
The whitehouse.gov link was to a set of talking points, and not necessarily what the official proposed bill was. It’s not impossible that there would be interesting differences between the two.
I’m still not sold inflation is long term. This bill is like a decade long so I don’t think it is really a short term actor either. This one is a good bill IMO.
2 Likes
Yeah, this is a drop in the bucket vs the inflationary pressure created by the student loan subsidy program we’ve had for decades or the debt cancellation that is coming.
Hmm, good point.
Some details:
- This is repurposing about $600 billion of previously unspent stimulus and creating $580 billion of new spending
The high level view copied and pasted from USA Today:
- $109 billion on roads, bridges, major projects
- $66 billion on passenger and freight rail
- $11 billion on safety
- $25 billion on airports
- $7.5 billion on electric buses
- $7.5 billion on electric vehicle infrastructure
- $1 billion on reconnecting communities
- $16 billion on ports and waterways
- $20 billion on infrastructure financing
- $55 billion on water infrastructure
- $65 billion on broadband infrastructure
- $21 billion on environmental remediation
- $73 billion on power infrastructure including grid authority
- $5 billion on western water storage
- $47 billion on resilience
Wish the top two numbers were flipped, but seems reasonable.
Anyone know what this means?
2 Likes
Also this… anyone know what this means?
2 Likes
Probably related to those UFOs
Overall this looks like a reasonable list.
I’m sure that spending on roads and bridges was essential to get GOP support. Republicans love their cars! (Worth noting is that Eisenhower was behind the Interstate Highway System… which he viewed as being essential from a national defense perspective.)
It’s money to help fix the issues created by highways that go through urban areas ‘splitting’ the communities in two.
1 Like
Seems odd to me to spend the same amount on specifically electric buses as electric vehicle infrastructure. $2.5 for buses and $12.5 for infrastructure seems more correct.
Seems like the benefits are local. I’d prefer that the funding and decision making would also be local. The federal gov’t shouldn’t be involved in this.
I commented on “reconnecting communities”, but I have a similar comment on most of the stuff on this list.
If we get into the details, I think we’ll find that most of the benefits of each of the funded projects are local. If the benefits are local, then the funding and the decisions should be local.
For example, I want clean water. But, I don’t think the cost of wells and water treatment and pipes in my city should be covered by taxpayers from California to Maine.
The primary historic reason most of these things were federal spending was that politicians could say they were delivering goodies to their constituents and “somebody else” was paying.
The modern line is that politicians are delivering the goodies to their constituents and that “nobody will ever have to pay” because vodoo economics.
I agree, but what I am wondering is where the tipping point is between the two. $1T can be good while $10T can be horrible.
Additional infrastructure can be good, but there can be too much (c.f. “Bridge to Nowhere”), especially considering new items will have their own maintenance costs going forward. You want to focus the choices on those that are efficient uses of capital. My example of CA HS rail being a poor one is due to the incredibly high construction costs per mile and limited carrying capacity.
Some of the argument is historical fairness. It was done for some communities in the past, but not others.
The other perspective is not all communities can afford it on their own. There seems to be more political will to fund sewage treatment systems than to say “You must move” to people whose families have lived for generations in locations where septic tanks don’t work effectively.
Also, the federal government funded the construction that split these communities.
1 Like
Not always Federal, would think a lot more state. There is some fascinating stuff on Robert Moses and NY development
I certainly don’t think the benefits of roads and bridges are local.
I benefit from Interstate 70 existing even though I live nowhere near any part of it.
I’ve taken it on road trips numerous times. I benefit from lower airfare because it exists as a viable alternative to air travel. I benefit by living under the blanket of security the US military provides, which in part relies on them being able to move goods and troops around the country quickly and efficiently. I’m sure that numerous items I buy and/or use traveled on I-70 as they were shipped from the manufacturer or entry port to me.
You could probably say similar for a lot of items on the list.
2 Likes