2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTrumps Infrastructure plan: Privatize Interstate Highways, bridges, tunnels
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-infrastructure-plan-washington-reality-231649But by Wednesday morning, Steven Mnuchin, a leading contender for Treasury secretary, told reporters the transition team was looking at the creation of an infrastructure bank, a pot of money that would use federal money to attract state and private dollars to fund projects. Its hardly a new idea in transportation circles but Trumps presidential campaign had blasted Clinton for proposing the same idea, saying such a bank would be controlled by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington D.C."
President Barack Obama has also repeatedly proposed an infrastructure bank, though that idea went nowhere in Congress.
Trumps campaign also called for setting up public-private partnerships, another means of encouraging private investors to put their money into infrastructure. In one version, the investors would get tax credits to build a project and could recoup their money by charging fees for its use, such as tolls. But as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote Saturday, that would be problematic for types of infrastructure that don't generate revenue streams: "Toll roads are not the main thing we need right now; what about sewage systems, making up for deferred maintenance, and so on?"
pbmus
(12,422 posts)Infrastructure my ass...all a don boggle. Takeover of our public roads
MyNameIsKhan
(2,205 posts)work pay toll... other cities have tolled roads to discourage congestion or we have tolled bridges those were built with public bonds but highways is unheard off...
Auggie
(31,172 posts)Bleed municipalities dry then buy their public services. Cut salaries and employee benefits and raise fees. Classic Shock Doctrine.
SharonAnn
(13,775 posts)Ive got a simple message for Democrats who are embracing President-elect Donald Trumps infrastructure plan: Dont do it. Its a trap. Backing Trumps plan is a mistake in policy and political judgment they will regret, as did their Democratic predecessors who voted for Ronald Reagans tax cuts in 1981 and George W. Bushs cuts in 2001.
First, Trumps plan is not really an infrastructure plan. Its a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump plan doesnt directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clintons 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trumps plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. Theres no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects.
Moreover, as others have noted, desperately needed infrastructure projects that are not attractive to private investors municipal water-system overhauls, repairs of existing roads, replacement of bridges that do not charge tolls get no help from Trumps plan. And contractors? Well, they get a 10 percent pretax profit margin, according to the plan. Combined with Trumps sweeping business tax break, this would represent a stunning $85 billion after-tax profit for contractors underwritten by the taxpayers.
Second, as a result of the above, Trumps plan isnt really a jobs plan, either. Because the plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because theres no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring. Investors may simply shift capital from unsubsidized projects to subsidized ones and pocket the tax breaks on projects they would have funded anyway. Contractors have no obligation to hire new workers, or expand workers hours, to collect their $85 billion. To their credit, the plans authors dont call it a jobs plan; ironically, it is Democrats looking to align with Trump who have given it that name. They should not fool themselves.
Auggie
(31,172 posts)liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)The Indiana Turnpike sucks.
MyNameIsKhan
(2,205 posts)SOUTH BEND, Ind. An Australian company has reached a $5.73 million agreement to buy the bankrupt business that holds the lease to the Indiana Toll Road. IFM Investors purchased ITR Concession Co., which holds the lease on the 157-mile highway across northern Indiana for another 66 years.
Australian company buys bankrupt Indiana Toll Road vendo
www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/11/...indiana-toll-road.../70161160/
avebury
(10,952 posts)plans are often probelmatic because they rely upon state employees to review them and send them back with corrections. I would be hesitent to rely upon totally privately built roads and bridges.
randr
(12,412 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)Public Roads and bridges already paid for ten times over by taxpayers will be turned over to those that will gouge the public, they didn't build this.
AmericanMan1958
(520 posts)The road construction under Pence is unbelievable.
No new Businesses, most people can't figure what they are doing.
Massive land buys around intersection. There are round-abouts out in the middle of the country, with nothing but corn fields as far as the eye can see.
The political kick backs must be great. Indiana property taxes have doubled in many area.
I will admit their roads are wonderful, but there is some crazy waste.
There is a nursery by mom's that had great access right off state highway, been there since I was a kid.
Well he must of pissed someone off, the new hwy design all but land locked him.
Nearest exit for him is 2 miles up the hwy and the country road you take to get to his business now dead ends at his parking lot.
Needless to say, he has lost his business and is now closed.