Finally! A Serious Proposal on Infrastructure
Barack Obama has just announced support for a national infrastructure bank -- similar to the one that Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel have been pushing for in Congress.
This is really important for the nation -- and helps to get back to sensible thinking about rebuilding the foundation on which this country's commerce, jobs base, social networks, just about everything that requires connectivity is based. Dems -- particularly budget hawks -- are in a bind because the stress on the discretionary part of the national budget is going to preempt any 'politics of optimism' if we can't distinguish between capital investments in national infrastructure that will help drive forward growth and gains for the economy -- and other kinds of disbursements that have less of an impact on economic growth.
This is great. To be fair, Hillary Clinton has talked a lot about infrastructure in the debates and in her speeches. . .but to my knowledge she had not proposed anything as tangible as this national infrastructure bank concept.
It's about time -- and it makes sense. Good for Senator Obama. I hope that Hillary Clinton joins up to the idea.
Here are Obama's words on the subject delivered today in Janesville, Wisconsin at a GM assembly plant:
For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years.This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs -- many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong.
And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.
Truth in advertising. The New America Foundation where I work is working hard to move national infrastructure investment forward as evident in this article by Samuel Sherraden and this piece, "Public Investment Works" by Sherle R. Schwenninger and Bernard L. Schwartz.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Dog-bites-man. Democrats know how to run a country.
That said, I am pleased to hear this, and hope that not only rebuilding, but forward-looking projects such as detailed in the Solar Grand Plan (Scientific American, January, 2008) can be included. It will take time, labor, and material to install the new electrical grid, and the solar and wind generators we need. And those items will need maintenance, too.
February 13, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Tom - That "Solar Grand Plan" article was superb and like the broader question of next gen communications or broadband 2.0, I think what constitutes "infrastructure" needs to be broadened.
Thanks for the comment,
Steve Clemons
February 13, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great. Can you say "The New Deal 2.0."
February 13, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are giving me hope.
Could you please stop it?
February 13, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is really important for the nation -- and helps to get back to sensible thinking about rebuilding the foundation on which this country's commerce, jobs base, social networks, just about everything that requires connectivity is based...capital investments in national infrastructure that will help drive forward growth and gains for the economy -- and other kinds of disbursements that have less of an impact on economic growth."
"This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs -- many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong."
A chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage...and lots of pie in the sky. Where are you going to put all those new houses, businesses, roads, etc. if not on virgin land or farm land?
Sorry but this is an obvious crock.
February 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow I get the idea that offensivetoyou is reading comprehension challenged.
As I understand it, we are not talking about new houses, businesses, and roads but rather rebuilding those we have that are crumbling, along, perhaps, with schools and other public facilities. A rebuilt bridge that just might not collapse anytime soon requires no virgin land, and repairs, by their very nature, take up no additional space.
The real pie in the sky is thinking we can not do this and continue to prosper.
February 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, a correction. Please clip
"-- and other kinds of disbursements that have less of an impact on economic growth"
from the quote in my first post. It was mistakenly included.
Second, mjshep, do you really believe we can "drive forward growth and gains for the economy" simply by government employment of a lot of repairmen, even high-class repairmen?
Sure, infrastructure repairs are as necessary as house repairs or any other kind of maintenance. No one is questioning that. But you have to be a little bit imaginative when reading stuff like this.
If we want to "drive forward growth and gains for the economy" we have to go well beyond rebuilding. We have to engage in the modern equivalent of '30s dam-building...which is impossible if we are to truly care for the environment.
You can't have endless economic and population growth. If you care for life on this planet it has to stop.
February 13, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zero-sum thinking without basis.
If the forward growth means spreading into farmland, suburban sprawl, you're correct. Is there a physical law that makes that inevitable? If the growth comes in cities, the much higher efficiencies of city living can abasorb a large increase in population without increasing resource use.
The gains also include increased efficiencies in existing structures, like the majority of single-family homes that need unpgrading to lower energy demand or net energy producer.
Gains also include redesigning roads to accomodate other types of transport than cars and trucks. Gains could include replacing aging rail with modern high-speed rail.
None of those measns giving up farmland, or draining resources faster than now. A refit that should be begun is to add secondary heat exchangers to every coal-burning power plant, as well as factories with somokestacks. This alone would yield the equivalent of 200 new electrical plants, Put another way, 200 gigawatts of power goes up the chimney now. A side benefit is that mercury and other nasty metals simply rain out in the heat exchanger, since the exhaust temp tis low.
OK? Get over the grumps and get with the picture. There's work to be done, and I haven't even mentioned outer space.
February 13, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with some of what he's saying, but you have to admit that we can't have endless population growth. Ideally, in my mind, we'd have none, starting right now. Sure there'd be some adjustments to make (OK, a lot of adjustments), but we need to do it eventually.
That said, Obama isn't asking for endless population growth. I didn't see where he mentioned any population growth.
February 13, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't count on an Iraq peace dividend.
Probably between 50% and 75% of all equipment sent to Iraq will be deemed irreparable, and the rest will need major overhauls. It will cost $$$ to rebuild the Army, and to fix the mess we are in. Add the costs of Afghanistan, and you probably don't have anything to spend.
What is needed, instead, is a new budgeting concept. Only government insists on having a consolidated budget, so that borrowing for current spending is treated the same as borrowing for capital improvements. Why not simply do what any private corporation would do: offset the debt (the amount borrowed) with the asset (the new road). Total effect on the federal budget - zero. As the bonds get paid off, that is an expense item, but the asset remains.
February 13, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If the growth comes in cities, the much higher efficiencies of city living can absorb a large increase in population without increasing resource use."
There's no evidence to support that. People have to travel less and their residences can be built more efficiently but that's it. They eat just as much or more, require as much medical treatment per capita, and have a greater appetite and need for luxuries. Further, how do you propose to keep them in cities? The evidence is overwhelming that people don't like the crowding, filth, and crime that too often accompanies this type of living. Ditto substituting public for private transportation.
"A refit that should be begun is to add secondary heat exchangers to every coal-burning power plant"...etc., etc., etc.
Yes, increased efficiency is a good thing...but increasing population quickly overcomes the benefits.
"OK? Get over the grumps and get with the picture"
No, thank you. This picture looks to be a fraud.
February 13, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is certain that efficiency can be increased. It is not certain that population will increase unsustainably, although I agree it might without work on the subject. That is not an excuse for giving up and sneering how useless it all is. Get out of the way.
There is gobs of evidence for my position, and none for your assertion that there is none. The major demands on energy are heating/cooling and transport. And of course we could increase agricultural efficiency a lot by reducing meat consumption (which is declining slowly).
If people don't like living in cities why do the najority of them do so? And if we stop enabling them to live at unreasonable distances away from their jobs that might help, too, huh?
If population is going to grow without control, would you rather we just let it happen without improving efficiency? Could we perhaps provide birth control to other countries like we used to? Even China wants to control its population.
February 13, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
""If the growth comes in cities, the much higher efficiencies of city living can absorb a large increase in population without increasing resource use."
That's your position. Present some supporting evidence. I've acknowledged that it takes LESS energy per capita to transport people in a city. I'll acknowledge that the same is true for heating/cooling (Although, frankly, I'm not sure either proposition is true. What is true is that people have to travel less and live in communal rather than detached dwellings). For the rest, I dealt in the obvious, more people require more food, more heat, more of everything. Not less.
"That is not an excuse for giving up and sneering how useless it all is. Get out of the way."
It's not sneering to point out that an idea is flawed, a fraud, a lie. I've not taken a position against rebuilding the infrastructure, or increasing industrial efficiency. I've not said anything about birth control - although I obviously support the widest possible dissemination of the idea and its methods. What I have said is that increasing population and economic growth are very damaging to the environment. Unavoidably so.
"If people don't like living in cities why do the najority of them do so? And if we stop enabling them to live at unreasonable distances away from their jobs that might help, too, huh?"
They live in cities because they have to, for the most part. Because that's where the jobs are. But their relationship with cities is one of love/hate. If you live well in a city it's glorius. Look at how the rich live - a mansion in the city, an estate in the country. That's how we'd all live if we could. And WE don't enable them. They, as voters, enable themselves. A rather important distinction. Also look at how new industries locate their factories - in farmland or virgin countryside because it's cheaper and nicer...and soon cities grow around them.
The relationship between overpopulation and environmental damage is as solid - scientifically - as the relationship between overpopulation and global warming...and the political opposition to recognizing those relationships is the same; fear of the consquences of actually doing something real to mitigate the problems.
February 13, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree about the relationship between overpopulation and environmental damage. Where is Obama seeking to increase our population? (Maybe I missed this…)
February 13, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A chicken in every pot, and a bun in every oven.
February 13, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You take an approximation and make it an absolute. There is lots of room for efficiency increase in cities, so there can be a popluation increase without increased energy and material demands. Food also if meat production is curtailed. Obviously, at some point the improvements run out, and more people = more resources needed. So the hell what?
Why are the jobs in the city? That's where the people are. I'm in the city because that's where my audience is. I don't live in a mansion. Cities grow where there are rivers and ports for transport and shipping. I haven't seen any large cities around the auto plants in Illinois. The Belvidere assembly plant is in the country, yes. And there's nothing around it.
Woe is us. The world is ending. It's all a lie.
No. I reject that. It's not easy, and there are too many people, and if everybody tried to live like us we'd be in trouble as a planet, and there will be resouirce wars. So the hell what? What's the alternative? Let's try. Waiting for population reduction is a prescription for worse problems.
February 13, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not seeking to increase our population.
He's seeking to combat our economic problems with increased growth through the construction of new infrastructure (although he only talks about rebuilding) and an implied New Deal - which will have the same effect unless very specific contermeasures are enacted.
Nothing new or evil about this. It's just not consistant with protecting the environment.
I'm not singling him out for criticism...as if any of the other contenders had something better to offer. Just pointing out how flawed his position is. How inadequate. And it should be apparent to all by now that we are running out of time, that inadequacy will no longer suffice.
February 13, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this more trickle-down economics? The "Grand Infrastructure Plan" will make up for the worthless medical insurance plan that will provide no resolution to our current health care crisis?
You're willing to trade the lives of the uninsured for ... what, exactly?
Obama, from what I've read, does not regard health care as a high-priority item, and his published plan shows this. But, you should know better. How about if we put this new "grand vision" into the perspective of the candidate's overall vision -- and his actual ability to implement any of these "plans", his actual interest in implementing them? There's an adage, "Those who are talking about it aren't doing it." That seems to apply here.
Thanks.
mp
February 13, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards Unveils Stimulus Plan To Strengthen Economy And Create New Jobs
Dec 22, 2007 10:50 AM
Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
On final day of the "Fighting for America's Voice" tour, Edwards urges Congress to pass $25 billion job creation plan
Lisbon, Iowa – On the final day of his "Fighting for America's Voice" tour, Senator John Edwards proposed an economic stimulus package to strengthen our economy and create new jobs. Edwards urged Congress to act immediately to pass at least a $25 billion jobs plan in early 2008 and be ready to pass $75 billion more if there is more evidence that we are entering a recession. Edwards believes that every American should have access to a good job and the chance to build a better life. To provide a much-needed boost to a weakening economy, Edwards' economic stimulus plan calls for investing in clean energy infrastructure, increasing federal aid to help states avoid cutting programs that help families through hard times, reforming unemployment insurance and tackling the housing crisis.
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20071222-stimulus-plan/
February 13, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where in the Hell WERE all you god damn idiot pundits in December?
February 13, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems need to seize this issue.
As I said in another TPM post, it's time for a new New Deal. BHO or HRC can be the next FDR.
$600 billion over 10 years sounds like a lot, but not when compared to the weekly bills in Iraq. And I'm not sure its enough for what's needed.
In Pennsylvania the transportation department needs nearly $2 billion right now just to catch up on a backlog of projects, not to mention getting ready for future travel.
The Legislature is considering leasing/selling its turnpike to raise the money.
And don't forget plumbing. I talked to a knowledgeable guy yesterday who said that upgrading the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in PA will cost $20 billion.
Infrastructure projects are good for the economy because it will make well paying jobs for the people wearing the boots who for the past 7 years have lived under the boot.
February 13, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike it's not trickle down, or treacle down. It's pissing up. This creates well paying construction jobs and that just spreads from the bottom up. Enjoy the golden shower.
February 13, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me again, you're going to create how many million "well paying construction jobs" with the result that all the people without health insurance will now be able to afford it, thereby solving two problems at once.
Hmm, yeah. That sounds like "Laffer-nomics" to me.
Thanks.
mp
February 13, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The alternative is to point out shortcomings in policies which purport to be eco-friendly but aren't...and hope that someone listens.
The current position of most environmentalists is that wealth is the best contraceptive and therefore the best policies are those whose spread the wealth as well as encourage contraception and provide the means to achieve it.
It's not good enough. Resource wars are still wars and, if they are unavoidable - as you acknowledge, then maybe we should rethink our current opposition to preventative war.
February 13, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I consider myself an environmentlist and feel that contraception is the best contraceptive. It's not wealth you're thinking of, it's education that it most often correlated wityh smaller families.
February 14, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are you - not most environmentalists.
I've been following this issue carefully for 30 years. It's wealth that's seen as the driver for contraception - just as it is for education.
In wealthy societies people no longer view their kids as the source of their old age pension. In wealthy societies people have far more employment possibilities, far more opportunity to indulge their passions. In wealthy societies people are much more likely to avoid having children they can't afford. And so on, and so on.
Not a bad argument - but flawed in many ways. It assumes that all societies will follow the Western model, a big assumption. It assumes that there are enough resources to support a population well in excess of what we have today. Dead wrong.
Environmentalists adopted that position when it became apparent that unrestrained population growth was a third world phenomenon. It has caused them grief when it came time to deal with illegal immigration into the United States. I leave it to you to assess their motives.
There's an article in today's Internet edition of the Guardian. The number of Indian tigers has fallen to 1400, half of what had been previously thought. Maybe they'll be rescued from oblivion, maybe not. In any case they will survive only in artificial environments since their natural habitat in being rapidly destroyed by the cancerous growth of the Indian population - unrestrained by any government population policy. India is hardly alone - or the worst offender.
I haven't yet seen reactions to the news...but I'm willing to bet that Bush and his policies will be blamed in many parts of the blogosphere. Rightly so, if his policies are regarded as contributive rather than causative. Shall I then excuse Obama when I find him advocating some of the same things? Will he be able to resurrect the dead, as some of his followers seem to think?
I like the man. I like his style, his wit, his charm, his intelligence. I like his ability to interest and inspire young people. But I can't stand many of his worshippers. They frighten me with their stupid, over-the-top adulation. I'm with Krugman on this one. I can't see any difference between them and the dumbest of the right-wing robots.
February 14, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
MAy I guess that the Obama supporters that annoy you are found on the blogs, or reported in the press? If so, you see only the the self-selecting sample of the extreme, like in online polls or telephone call-in polls. And the wider the support base the larger the amount of visible extreme support.
You prefer the pessismistic, so you can point out you were right. Easy wisdom.
February 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...This is great. To be fair, Hillary Clinton has talked a lot about infrastructure in the debates and in her speeches. . .but to my knowledge she had not proposed anything as tangible as this national infrastructure bank concept..."
Clinton's August 7th, 2007 Rebuilding America: Improving our infrastructure speech:
"Investing in energy efficient infrastructure is one of the cheapest, cleanest, fastest ways we know to cut energy use and reduce emissions. In fact, the Department of Energy estimates that energy efficiency along, could cut national energy use by 20 percent in 20 years. It's a no-brainer – which is slightly higher standard than the current one we have Washington.
This is an issue whose time has come. And I'm proud to co-sponsor Senator Dodd and Senator Hagel's National Infrastructure Bank Act that we just introduced to establish a federally-backed independent bank that will evaluate and finance large infrastructure projects by subsidies, loan guarantees, and bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. "
Link to speech:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3889
And a second source - co-sponsors listed at Thomas.gov
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:55:./temp/~bdyBuv:@@@P|/bss/d110query.html|
February 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for linking. This is why we should be enthusiastic about either candidate, after the convention. They both get it.
February 14, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink