Even if a state DOT can come under the rare exceptions to the USDOT "Buy America" requirements for a highway or bridge project, for example, the project is built right here in the U.S. with labor that is almost entirely American ... and the ones who benefit most from the use of the infrastructure are Americans.
You said, “.....Infrastructure spending — even if they blatantly lie about what “infrastructure” is, and it includes some of the idiocy listed in the article — has a lot of appeal to government officials and economists for one big reason: It's one of the few things that can't be outsourced.
Even if a state DOT can come under the rare exceptions to the USDOT “Buy America” requirements for a highway or bridge project, for example, the project is built right here in the U.S. with labor that is almost entirely American ... and the ones who benefit most from the use of the infrastructure are Americans. .......”
In my career, I have advised many government agencies that certain capital construction projects were not needed and that a lesser amount of money spent on significant maintenance could achieve even better results.
Let me explain, based on my knowledge gained from decades of experience and both an MBA and engineering degree. In public agency accounting, an asset is divided into “replacement units.” Let's say you have a substandard bridge. Unless you are removing and replacing full replacement units, the work is “maintenance” and has to come from a public agency “operating budget.” So if you were to replace specific girders, or some of the guard rails or some portion of the bridge deck, it would not be a “capital budget construction project.” And yet the whole bridge might not be needing replacement to bring it up to current standards. Maybe just additional bracing and some specific component replacements.
I have been lectured by Public Agencies so shut up and do what I am told, because they want to pay for it with grant money and that they have staff that can charge time to the capital budget and thus reduce the departments Full Time Equivalent numbers so that the Department looks like it has less employees and a lower operating budget.
Furthermore, when I have said OK, I will design a full capital project for you and suggested we spend extra to make it a “low maintenance and long life project,” I have been told no, the agencies would rather not spend money on maintenance and just let if deteriorate so a new capital project funded by grants can replace it. This allows them to keep a number of FTE’s on the capital budget each year and means that the staff they hire doesn't need to have extensive maintenance training, as they won't be doing maintenance. Just build new, let fail and totally replace.
Until public agencies are held responsible for maintenance, new public works are a significant waste of money. Now if you would pass legislation that would insist on giving money to maintenance by local authorities, I will support that. Far to much infrastructure is and has been replaced because of negligent maintenance. And yes I have argued this with agencies to the point that some have fired me and I have told legislators about specific examples. And yet the game goes on and on and on.