Chart of the Day — The Collapse of Infrastructure Spending
This is one amazing chart — documenting just how much we are underspending in fixing and upgrading our infrastructure, keeping in mind that we were under-investing in infrastructure already. This chart includes state and local spending (not just the Feds) and should be a Very Big Red Flag:
That massive drop also represented an opportunity — not just to employ Americans, but to get cheap money to invest in ourselves for a change. This is completely unnecessary austerity in a thing that we will always need — bridges, roads, tunnels, airports, train stations, ports. Up in Pennsylvania, they’ve got a reputation for some of the worst bridges in the country — meaning that truckers moving goods need to spend time and money to go around some of the weight limited bridges. And in Pennsylvania, they can’t quite get the fixing of their bridges prioritized, while making sure that Shell Oil gets a massive tax subsidy (even though it is starting to look like Shell’s facility won’t get done), and school systems all over the state have had their funding cut.
There isn’t one bit of this infrastructure that is not vital to commerce here. But this chart shows just how fundamentally stupid starving ourselves really is.
Tags: Austerity
If you use the “would you run your household like this?” chestnut that Republicans (and wrong thinking Democrats like John Carney) use to explain austerity – you could say, we have not invested anything in the leaky roof and now have pretty shaky looking roof trusses.
Nice analogy but … when the house needs work, a Republican would take his profits and buy a newer, bigger one, telling the next generation that they should be happy with the grand bargain they’re getting on his rotting, leaking fix-er-upper.
You are absolutely right: we should be spending much more on infrastructure. If we could just eliminate welfare and food stamps, we’d have the money to do just that.
Notwithstanding the fact that putting more people too work decreases the food stamps and other benefits they get, it is refreshing I guess to hear a conservative openly admit that Americans should just starve.
In the meantime, said conservative forgets that very many of the people who are accessing these benefits ARE working, and probably working at the places he shops in.
We can’t feed hungry people because we have a new generation of jet fighters and bombers to build, even though most of them will never actually be used for anything beyond readiness exercises.
It’s not so much that conservatives are dumb as that they’re incapable of learning.
Let me be sure I understand what Dana is saying here. We are spending so much on welfare and food stamps that we don’t have the money to spend on infrastructure. Or, money is being taken from infrastructure to pay for welfare and food stamps.
Do I have that right?
What Dana is saying is that we are already being taxed at rates which are beyond our historical norms other than for war years; even during FY1944, we were only taxed at 20.9% of GDP, at the federal level. In the meantime, President Obama’s total federal spending projections are for 21.8% of GDP in FY2015 (22.2 in FY2014, but that’s going to be fouled up), levels which are completely out of our norm other than for recession years, and that’s actually lower than what we were spending in the previous years of his term.
What you want is more and more spending, at levels we cannot support with taxation, at levels we have never supported with taxation; other than the 20.6% of GDP in federal receipts in FY2000, the government cracked the 20% level only twice, the war years of FY1944 and 1945. If you want to spend more on infrastructure, then we have to spend less on something else. Me, I’d pick spending less money, a lot less money, on people who will not work.
I think you are saying that taxes are too high because we have people on food stamps? I’m not sure that is supportable, but I want to be sure I am getting the gist of your argument. I’m not sure I do.
Also, when you say “we are already being taxed at rates which are beyond our historical norms” who do you mean by “we” exactly? Americans? Or are you talking about your income quintile?
Frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. We’re currently taxed (this includes Social Security and Medicare) at of GDP. Current spending is about 22% of GDP and has been falling.
You can support infrastructure spending with borrowing, mainly because that is how most infrastructure spending is always done. And right now, borrowed money is CheapCheapCheap — because in spite of everything the GOP does to make this otherwise, US Treasuries are still the safest place to park cash.
And again, many of the people who do get benefits already work. You can get them off of government support by supporting a mandated livable wage.
Dana has some anger, (probably from the denial of maternal affection) that he is focusing on “people who will not work.” He seems to think that this population is responsible for some problems he is currently enduring. I’m trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is going to take some time.
Dana, if I may ask, what was your relationship with your mother like? Did you have brothers and sisters?
Oh I don’t know — from here he looks like he has all of the usual resentments that the “wrong people” are getting help from the government.
Dana, look at the deficits and debt we ran during WW II.
Yes. But what really drives that thinking? You can tell by his talking points that he has resentments that are being exploited by the usual suspects, but those resentments pre-date Fox News. I’m curious about what happened to him to make him such an easy mark.
The steep drop-off coincides with the 2010 Congressional ban on earmarks.
How things used to get done in Congress: on tough votes, party leaders and whips would go around to members that were hedging and promise them funds for various things in their home districts if they voted a certain way. This ensured that things the majority wanted could pass while also keeping infrastructure up and people working.
How things get done in Congress now: they don’t. And the country crumbles while the ignorant blame people that “don’t want to work”, egged on by lies fed to them by the increasingly idealistic right-wing nutjobs who are actually responsible for the whole mess.
This chart is government infrastructure spending across the board — Feds, states, municipalities. Certainly the House ban on earmarks (although many have resorted to what are called “lettermarks” now) doesn’t help, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t bringing home some bacon. It also doesn’t help that Congress can’t quite work out how much to spend on a basic reauthorization for Transportation. Some of the more local funding follows the Fed money — as Fed money flows, they know what to borrow to finish projects.
Jason, I posted this in an Open Thread some weeks back — an article that takes a look at some of what motivates some of the right wing to push back on “some” spending:
Our own transportation trust fund has had no significant increase in revenue in almost 6 years. The Governor and Deldot Secretary as a result want to cut transit for those with disabilities, while being a so called champion of jobs for those with disabilities.
What on earth happened in 2010 to cause it to plummet like that?
The real question is ” Why did congress kill the shovel ready initiative?”.
Shovel-ready is misleading — there aren’t that many infrastructure projects that are on the shelf ready to bid. Most states focus their resource on priority projects that they intend to get funding for, and other projects rise to the priority list later. These projects require design work in order to get a bid package, some have to pass environmental reviews, acquisition of rights-of-way, public review and so on. Which isn’t to say that they shouldn’t work at a better funding stream (lots of people are advocating an Infrastructure Bank), which would give states and municipalities some breathing room in getting the major repairs done AND in getting started on the more visionary projects.