Posted on 08/04/2016 5:16:07 AM PDT by expat_panama
2016 Elections: Largely overlooked because of the dust over his attacks on Khizr Khan, Donald Trump made an eye-opening promise on Tuesday, saying that he'd spend twice as much as Hillary Clinton on fixing roads and bridges. It's an outlandish proposal for any politician to make. But it's almost inconceivable that the Republican nominee for president would be trudging down this dreary big-government path.
"We need much more money than (Clinton's plan) to rebuild our infrastructure," Trump told Fox...
The numbers we're talking about here are massive. Clinton says that if elected she would boost federal spending...
Trump says he'll spend around $550 billion more over five years, which means that he's effectively splitting the difference between a liberal Democrat and a socialist Democrat. (Trump's spending plan also happens to be in line with what liberal economist Larry Summers advocated at a panel discussion at the Democratic National Convention.)
Looked at another way, Trump would double current federal spending on infrastructure...
...two problems with Trump's -- and Hillary's and Bernie's -- massive infrastructure spending plans. 1) They won't work, and 2) They aren't needed.
How do we know they won't work? Because President Obama already tried it...
...a recent Government Accountability Office report found that, when it comes to bridges at least, things are improving. The GAO found a 21% decline in the number of structurally deficient bridges between 2005 and 2014, while the country built 15,000 new bridges...
...too much bureaucracy. Any new road or bridge, or airport or dam or pipeline faces an onslaught of bureaucratic delays...
As a businessman, Trump should understand this and, instead of trying to one-up Hillary Clinton on spending, he should be demanding more accountability for the vast sums the nation already spends on its infrastructure.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Agree. If we do this “stimulus” and it actually goes into infrastructure unlike ARRA which was totally pork laden, then it’s a great idea. But we all know how the system works. The DC pols (ALL OF THEM) will set this up so they end up getting the kickbacks from their buddies who are the only ones who can be approved to be contractors. Crony capitalism at its finest...
So, massive amounts of wasteful spending is okay when our candidate does it?
So long as contracts go to *our* contractors ....
Try driving to JFK or LaGuardia at any given time. Like driving through a 3rd world hellhole and needing new shocks and struts once you get there. I’m with Trump on this.
LOL! That statement, like the chart you provided assume that the money wan't misappropriated/laundered and used for a lot of welfare/graft/bribery/vote buying, instead of for its intended purpose.....
every time I travel, there are many of the same areas that have been under perpetual 'construction" for the last 20 years and they never seem to complete. There's one small local area that's been under construction for over 3 years and still isn't half done - less than 5 miles of streets/sewers, etc. in a 12 block area.
"We need much more money than (Clinton's plan) to shore up the exorbitant pensions and benefits of government employees and their Unions.
There. Fixed it.
“2) They aren’t needed”
I sorta agree with that. A massive program is not necessary. It can be done over time.
Trump and Hillary need to tell us where the money will come from. An election is not a good time to talk about taking money away from domestic programs.
I have an abstract belief that Trump can get things done better than Hillary.
he’d spend twice as much as Hillary Clinton on fixing roads and bridges...it’s almost inconceivable that the Republican nominee for president would be trudging down this dreary big-government path.
I remember that to even build the interstate highway system our Federal Government had to do it under the auspices that they needed it to get our military around at times of war or need.
So, never mind...
This editorial is a blatant lie. Trump is calling for bonds to fund infrastructure development - you know, private money? income? retirement of debt? WTF are you pulling here?
While we both agree that there's really no more federal money for Airport lounges and roadside rest stops, we might want to consider that a national need for interstate transportation is still necessary. True, the original idea may have been roads for postal use, but just like the Romans, Andy Jackson went into road building big-time to fight Indians. The state highway system (ala 'Route 66') came in right after WWI and after the second WW the U.S. interstate highways began --along wigh a design criteria of 80 mph w/ bridge clearances for fast moving nuke missiles.
That said, some day tho we might want to consider a constitutional amendment ending the USPS --unless it's a Dem president and then he can just order it shut down....
Are we better off as a nation with "crumbling infrastructure" and spectacular social programs? Or have we gone too far? Perhaps we should rebuild a beautiful public square throughout the nation by cutting social spending by half. Maybe just kicking out all the illegals which cost us tens or maybe hundreds of billions every year would be enough to rebuild all of our "infrastructure" without raising taxes or borrowing one dime.
Nobody wants all private toll roads - so highway funds are both constitutional and necessary. If you bring back corporate dollars by adjusting federal tax rates, leverage proper tariffs and trade deals... cut taxes and create jobs so there is an overall increase in tax revenue.... then yes, there will be money for proper highway projects.
This hit piece presupposes that nothing else changes but an increase in spending. Just a typical hit piece.
It’s not sound economics, but in reality very little of Obama’s stimulus went to infrastructure.
It went to prevent layoff of government union employees to keep the Democrat money laundering machine a-humming.
It's just truly stunning to see this. We fought Obama's stimulus/infrastructure government make-work projects tooth and nail, and now that our candidate proposes more of the same almost everyone here seems to be for it....
Every community is different, which is why further expansion of the federal role in infrastructure spending is not a good idea. Let the locals figure out what is needed. And make the locals pay for it, which will cut out much of the nonsense. That said, in many major metro areas, shoehorning more cars, more parking, and more arterial roads into already heavily congested areas is a fools' game. On my aggressive days, I think we should dispense with eminent domain and let motorists pay full market value if they want to take other people's sidewalks, tree plats, and front yards for another traffic lane, and sacrifice urban parks for yet another access ramp. That would stop sprawl pretty quickly, and help induce people to live closer to their jobs.
Bike paths? I'm generally in favor of building bike (and pedestrian) routes into the mix from the start, or when major renovation or replacement projects arise. Retrofitting can be costly, but when accommodations are made up front, the cost is much less. The form these should take will vary. Off-road trails utilizing existing parkland and stream and rail corridors are great, where the opportunity exists. These, however, will constitute a small fraction of the mileage needed for a coherent network. On quiet residential streets, bikes and cars can share safely, with marked bike lanes thrown in where appropriate. On busier streets, dedicated bike lanes or wide sidewalks are solutions. It is best, of course, to route bikes entirely away from busier streets, but that only works if the side streets are accessible and bikeable. If you see cyclists dodging heavy traffic, it's only because the transportation planners have left no other way for bikes (or pedestrians, for that matter) to get from A to B. Unfortunately, this often happens.
A recent example: two weeks ago while exploring a new route I rode a seven mile detour because a railroad across my route was crossed only by two parallel arterial roads, one an interstate, neither of which had a sidewalk. That's seven miles to move about 100 years ahead, where side streets opened up again. That's lousy design, in an area with a major park on a river, where there are pedestrians, dog walkers, and joggers as well as bicyclists, and you can't move 100 yards from A to B without a car. That's the kind of thing that makes us irritable.
The motorists, of course, never stop to reflect that people actually live there and might like to get around, or that there were certainly once sidewalks that allowed them to do so, before those were sacrificed to the car lobby.
The point is not simply to make the world safe for recreational cycling. Walkable, bikeable neighborhoods add value. They are attractive to young adults with an appetite for active lifestyles, they're attractive to families with kids, they're great for retirees, and they might even entice a few people out of their cars for a little exercise. No, not everyone will take up biking, but it's an activity that most people find pleasurable, and many more people would do it if they had good places to ride. I've come to think of bike friendliness as one of the easiest community quality of life enhancers available -- and again, it doesn't have to be expensive if it's built in from the start, or in the course of major renovations. (Put a pedestrian/bike path -- a wide sidewalk -- on the #"&!(%## bridge, already, and do it everytime a bridge is replaced.) Think of it as an incentive to gentrification, which it is; 20-something yuppies love jogging and biking trails, and it's better for them to help reclaim older, close-in neighborhoods than to live in the far suburbs and add to the congestion on the highways.
In my area, the biggest problems seem to exist where sidewalks (and in the suburbs, wide shoulders) were sacrificed years ago to create more traffic lanes. Roads that easily and safely accommodated pedestrians and bicyclists when they were built have been turned into commuter sewers, and rendered unfit for anyone else. They become barriers to anyone not in a car. Motorists need to understand that this is a serious degradation of the neighborhoods they traverse, and that compensatory spending on bike and pedestrian access, and landscaping to buffer the sights, sounds, and smells of heavy traffic, are appropriate uses of transportation funding. It's another case of internalizing the externalities.
Here is a rule of thumb. Forget bikes for a moment. Pedestrians should be able to walk safely along ANY road in an urban area. After all, pedestrians actually live in the neighborhoods that motorists consider drive-through country, and they should be able to get around. And pedestrians should be able to conveniently cross roads without long detours, which means more stoplights or pedestrian over/underpasses on commuter arteries. Make those sidewalks wide enough to pass, and you've solved the bike problem as well.
Don’t get me started on bike paths. The lefty Mayor of Pittsburgh has been irking people by turning perfectly good roadways and bridges into bike paths. The city core is being taken over by Millenials, gays and climate change bedwetters, which forms the base of his coalition.
Absolutely, this is key.
We can't borrow any more because the Treasury Dept's interest payments (at near zero %) are as high as they were 8 years ago (at 6%). We can raise tax rates (unless we want less revenue). Our only hope is less spending and any talk about how much we'll save w/o the Dept. Energy, the EPA, and the Education Dept. is fantasy. That's a 3% drop along w/ a ten % annual hike from baseline budgeting.
<< these are the choices, and imho it looks like we'll have to cut Social Security and H&HS by say, a third!
The Democratic urban yuppie bedwetter coalition that you deplore -- and I share your sentiment -- is what it is largely because these are mostly unmarried, mostly childless people, because they are renters rather than owners, and because they are the products of leftist indoctrination mills who are partial to groupthink neighborhoods where never is heard a dissenting word. They do serve a purpose, however, in providing the opening wedge for gentrification of neighborhoods that are off-limits to people with children. Credit where credit is due.
Residential political preferences aside, however, city planning should do a better job in prioritizing people who actually live in the city over commuters. The guy who is 28 years old, living in a loft, enjoying the cafe life, working long hours and averse to cooking and housework, etc., may very well prefer living without the hassles of a car. He will like the ability to get around on foot, or on a bike. Good for him. Not everyone has to be a suburban commuter. In big cities, choking on congestion and far past the point of diminishing returns on roadbuilding, we need to shift the balance back towards people who actually (radical thought!!!) live close to their work.
Soon enough, the urban yuppie will probably turn into an owner rather than a renter, and eventually his kids will change his perspective. This is how we can hope to reclaim and rehabilitate young liberals, some of them at least. The single biggest thing we could do to change the politics of urban America would be to fix (or voucher) the public schools, so that families with children would be likelier to stay.
OK by me as long as the prevailing wage rule is waived.
Everyone likes to say that, kind of like everyone likes to say "terrible U.S. education". Fact is that U.S. transportation/communication systems (along w/ U.S. education for that matter) are first rate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.