What is the Republicans problem with "infrastructure" funding?

[CTyankee]

I watched some of our state's lege debate infrastructure funding and honestly, I can't figure out why the Republicans have this bugaboo about it. They always seem to have it, no matter what.

Our highways allow trucks to deliver goods to markets. Markets are good. But trucks wear down highways. So the roads need regular repair. Repair means adequate funding is required. What is the problem with that?

[cos dem]

1. It would negate their argument that govt can't do anything right.

This is one thing Dems need to get on, is start talking more specific about the positives that govt brings. Good roads, good airports, good healthcare, these are all things that improve lives for every individual in the country if they're funded right.

[Wounded Bear]

3. Yeah, it keeps people mad at the government...nt

[Newest Reality]

2. My guess...

My guess is that they tend to be for privatization of anything and everything. That way, the one's who are part of the investor class can get a return on their investment, which is their real holy grail.

I know that private companies would be contracting the work, but what I mean is that you let it get bad enough so that it appears that the government(s) are not working and so, it shifts to private companies who then repair and maintain things and we still pay for it, but they take it over and demand fees, tolls, etc.

Neoliberalism demands more transactions, so that would be the desired outcome for them.

[CTyankee]

4. I'm not against tolls but there are ways to reduce their regressivity.

In the strict sense, tolls are the price one pays for using the roads. How does that not make sense?

[Newest Reality]

8. Tolls are not...

Tolls are not what I am referring to, at least in the traditional sense.

Imagine that some large company maintains and fixes your roads and gets a contract, but that company gets the profit from a per mile surcharge whenever you drive. You would either pay as you go with telemetry that reports your mileage or pay up by having an odometer reading yearly, for instance.

If we were talking about bridges, then imagine every bridge that was repaired privately extracting a significant toll for crossing. If you took a trip, you could end up paying many tolls along the way and it would add up. If you lived around the bridge, well, you would have another regressive cost, especially if you had to get to work or shop, etc.

So, they may get a contract, but take over the funding partially or completely, extracting a profit from it. Otherwise, there would be no incentive and it is all about getting a return.

I think that kind of outline or template would fit for many infrastructure situations and when it doesn't, then it will probably crumble. Handing over our infrastructure and institutions is going to work as a from of Neoliberalism as I said. The more transactions, the better. If people don't like all the bank fees we pay already, you are not going to like an endless stream of micro-transactions and it will become a bigger financial burden.

[CTyankee]

9. If you lived around the bridge, it would indeed be regressive to tax you every time you crossed and

were going to your job. Then, I would assume the employer would build that cost into your pay or arrange for a fee reduction with the bridge authority. Or you might move to be closer to the other side of the bridge (that's called "relocation&quot .

Also, would the bridge authority not have a "commuter" charge? I see this practice on highways, or have seen it when I used to go to Boston from New Haven on a regular basis (now I take the train).

[Newest Reality]

10. This is going a bit off track...

from my original point. I am extrapolating on just one example where public services are taken over by private concerns.

I guess a good question is, do you think paying to drive by the mile, anywhere, would be alright? What would be the maximum, per-mile cost that you would accept? With the transactions I talked about, it can get complicated, (as in different costs in different areas) but the Internet of things and the Fourth Industrial Revolution are going to make cars and systems that will be able to do the transactions easily.

People could then refute this by saying that taxes will just be replaced with fees, but the fees will represent profits. Also, as we see, the privatization is not necessarily the best solution, (as per private prisons, etc.) because profit is the primary consideration and everything else becomes secondary. That can equate to poor materials used, less skilled workpersons, longer delays in repairs, regular increases in fees, etc.

This is more of an example of privatization, rather than particular costs and tolls, that I am illustrating.

[CTyankee]

11. The repukes would say that government workers would slack off without a motive to do their

best (unions would encourage that as in "good enough for government work&quot and get the highest remuneration for their work. A good friend of ours was a union plumber and shop steward and he is enraged by this argument. I have always admired his devotion to the union cause and to the crew of plumbers he represented.

[LastDemocratInSC]

6. Your statement is the same as what I was going to say.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. They only care about it if they can make money on it.

Self aggrandizing is all conservatives stand for these days.

[Flaleftist]

7. Maybe they want to privatize all of them.

Then corporations will maintain them as long as we pay tolls all over the place.

[Hekate]

12. They've moved into a realm past Reason, or what we used to think of as Reason. Follow the money...

Last edited Sat Feb 1, 2020, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

As I used to say during the BushCheney admin: Who Does This Serve? Because I was not (and am not) sophisticated enough to follow the money without a map. So that,question actually worked for me.

So who does this serve? For one: People for whom oligarchy is the goal -- no social value, only money and power. Look at the global models: do such countries have functioning schools and roads?

For another: People for whom the goal lies in the next life. Why should they care about public schools and repaired bridges? We now have not just one batshit crazy religious group, but a whole consortium of them. (I may start an OP on that eventually.) Regarding public schools see prime example Betsy DeVoss.