Infrastructure spending --- why not bi-partisan consensus
It seems inexplicable. Any proposals related to increased infrastructure spending seem to be blocked before they get started by Congress.
The last heyday for infrastructure spending in the U.S. was the 1950's. The facts suggest that there should be no debate. Many bridges, tunnels, roads, rail lines, levees, dams, and airports are in need of updating, repair, or replacement. This infrastructure is essential for meaningful long term economic growth, not to mention near term safety. Beginning a comprehensive program to jumpstart infrastructure spending should be obvious. It would create job growth, capital investment, and lay the groundwork for the next generation's future. What Republican or Democrat would openly say they are against those goals.
Governor Christie of New Jersey wouldn't say it, but he is. When he shut down the building of a second rail tunnel from Manhattan to New Jersey he could not have been more short sighted, politically motivated, and downright selfish. He said that New Jersey could not afford it, even though the Federal government was committed to paying around two thirds of the cost. So now we are doomed, longer term, to one main aging commuter and freight rail tunnel that connects the Northeast to the rest of the Atlantic Coast states. Does that represent an obvious risk? Yes. If there were a concept of eminent domain for the Federal government over the states, it would have been the perfect time to exercise it.
Executing an infrastructure spending plan would be complex for sure. It would require more spending that would need to be offset but belt tightening elsewhere. There would be an absolute need to streamline state and especially Federal bureauccrazys to get things done in a reasonable time frame. It would require an open-minded approach to public/private partnerships. And as President, Obama would get credit for starting an essential process which would last well beyond his time in office. Many Republicans just choke on that idea. They seem to put a personal vendetta ahead of American progress.
Perhaps many members of Congress have not traveled outside of the U.S., or if so only on government sponsored trips where they were shuttled around to nice hotels and government buildings and saw next to nothing. The infrastructure spending in much of Europe has been ongoing and is startling in comparison to what we see around us here. Asia, well that's amazing to behold in many countries and still underway(don't ask about India). With no means of comparison, much of Congress seems to think of the U.S. parochially as the most advanced country in the world in all respects.
With the gridlocked Congress now and a thought process over many years and Presidencies of self-satisfaction leading to deferred investments, we are in a state of denial that is unsustainable. There will be consequences.
The last heyday for infrastructure spending in the U.S. was the 1950's. The facts suggest that there should be no debate. Many bridges, tunnels, roads, rail lines, levees, dams, and airports are in need of updating, repair, or replacement. This infrastructure is essential for meaningful long term economic growth, not to mention near term safety. Beginning a comprehensive program to jumpstart infrastructure spending should be obvious. It would create job growth, capital investment, and lay the groundwork for the next generation's future. What Republican or Democrat would openly say they are against those goals.
Governor Christie of New Jersey wouldn't say it, but he is. When he shut down the building of a second rail tunnel from Manhattan to New Jersey he could not have been more short sighted, politically motivated, and downright selfish. He said that New Jersey could not afford it, even though the Federal government was committed to paying around two thirds of the cost. So now we are doomed, longer term, to one main aging commuter and freight rail tunnel that connects the Northeast to the rest of the Atlantic Coast states. Does that represent an obvious risk? Yes. If there were a concept of eminent domain for the Federal government over the states, it would have been the perfect time to exercise it.
Executing an infrastructure spending plan would be complex for sure. It would require more spending that would need to be offset but belt tightening elsewhere. There would be an absolute need to streamline state and especially Federal bureauccrazys to get things done in a reasonable time frame. It would require an open-minded approach to public/private partnerships. And as President, Obama would get credit for starting an essential process which would last well beyond his time in office. Many Republicans just choke on that idea. They seem to put a personal vendetta ahead of American progress.
Perhaps many members of Congress have not traveled outside of the U.S., or if so only on government sponsored trips where they were shuttled around to nice hotels and government buildings and saw next to nothing. The infrastructure spending in much of Europe has been ongoing and is startling in comparison to what we see around us here. Asia, well that's amazing to behold in many countries and still underway(don't ask about India). With no means of comparison, much of Congress seems to think of the U.S. parochially as the most advanced country in the world in all respects.
With the gridlocked Congress now and a thought process over many years and Presidencies of self-satisfaction leading to deferred investments, we are in a state of denial that is unsustainable. There will be consequences.
posted by John Borden at 4:16 PM
1 Comments:
With Christie unwilling to participate in a project that was in the national interest, maybe Obama should have told him that the Federal Government did not have enough money to rebuild back to normal Christie's beloved boardwalk after Sandy.
Post a Comment
<< Home