Government Infrastructure Spending

[cybercoma]

An article came up today from The Atlantic that shows how much the US government is spending on infrastructure in relation to its military spending excluding defense infrastructure. It's a terrible indicator of failed domestic accountability.



At first, I wanted to say that this is not that big of a deal, since the government obviously ramped up spending on the military given the war in Afghanistan and intervention in Iraq. Obviously they had to take the money from somewhere to pay for those things. However, the chart begins in 2001 and shows that infrastructure spending has taken a sharp decline anyway during this period. You can argue that the wars were necessary, but that's not really the purpose of this thread. Let's all assume that they were necessary. However, to what end? Obviously, the US government's "stimulus" spending is not going towards things needed at home. While wars are fought overseas the castle is left to crumble.

Edited November 2, 2013 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Very interesting. Money is being spent, but on what ? I am not one to throw stones at America for how they do things, but didn't they invent workfare ? It seems like an opportunity being missed here.

I'd like to see the same graph for this country.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'd like to see the same graph for this country.

Yes...and many other countries as well. U.S. "infrastructure spending" occurs at the federal, state, and local levels, all of which are impacted by constrained budgets. The biggest relative drops were in state and local spending. Here is a chart for ALL public spending, which does not include the "war spending" bias above.

[Bonam]

I'm not sure that the drop in infrastructure spending is a result of defense spending. The US has taken significant steps to cut "discretionary" spending (including substantial cuts in defense), while "mandatory" spending has remained untouched. Mandatory spending refers to entitlement programs: social security, medicare, medicaid, and the like. These programs take up the vast majority of the US federal budget, and the expenditures associated with these programs are growing more quickly than the economy. As they take up an ever larger and larger component of federal spending, and remain "mandatory", everything else will be cut, including both defense and infrastructure spending, as we have seen.

Personally, I think spending money on infrastructure is super important. Infrastructure benefits everyone in the country and stimulates faster economic growth. I think a real look should be taken at the portion of the budget that the US considers "mandatory", and ways should be found to find savings there. Chained CPI, linking retirement age to life expectancy, finding ways to reduce the costs of healthcare, etc. Only in this way will any money be freed up for use on discretionary programs like infrastructure, scientific research, and education, which in my view are far more important for the government to fully fund.

[waldo]

An article came up today from The Atlantic that shows how much the US government is spending on infrastructure in relation to its military spending.

it's just non-defense spending. Within the chart itself, there's no direct correlation to military spending. The drastic infrastructure cuts from 2010 clearly define the U.S. PartyOfNo doing its best job to thwart Obama's intended job push centered on infrastructure spending... and yes, spending when it should occur - when interest rates are down/lowest.

of course it's quite difficult to boost U.S. government spending... on things like schools & infrastructure, when you've got the TeaPartee led GOP completely focused on cuts and shrinking government! Meanwhile, the U.S. infrastructure crumbles!

[cybercoma]

I'd like to see the same graph for this country.

That would be interesting, but we don't spend nearly as much on our military. To what would you compare infrastructure spending? GDP maybe? Edited November 2, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

it's just non-defense spending. Within the chart itself, there's no direct correlation to military spending.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was looking at a number of articles today and must have got this chart mixed up with something else I was looking at. I'll edit the OP.

[bush_cheney2004]

As I suspected, "infrastructure spending" in other nations is nothing to write home about, unless playing catch up, considering most DO NOT spend a lot on defense. The U.S. is average, about the same as Canada as a percentage of GDP, but Canada's defense spending is....ummmm.....modest in comparison. Some U.S. infrastructure spending is actually related to defense (e.g. Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways or Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel).

Get ready for a surprise. According to OECD statistics, the United States spends 3.3 percent of its GDP (2006-2011) on infrastructure investment versus the European Union’s 3.1 percent. With roughly equal GDPs, the United States actually outspends the Europe Union – our model of infrastructure perfection.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/04/01/infrastructure-gap-look-at-the-facts-we-spend-more-than-europe/

A 2011 study by Marco Percoco, a professor at Bocconi University in Italy, shows that U.S. public investment has tracked the OECD average since at least 1970. Developed nations invest between 2 percent and 3.5 percent of GDP. The U.S. is about where it should be -- close to peer nations such as Canada, Germany and Australia. Nations that spend substantially more tend to be in a phase of catch-up growth, such as South Korea and Poland.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-08/the-myth-of-the-falling-bridge.html

Edited November 2, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

speaking of that crumbling U.S. infrastructure, every 4 years, the American Society of Civil Engineers releases a Report Card for Americas Infrastructure... the most recent 2013 report depicts the condition and performance of the U.S.' infrastructure, following a letter grade assignment to each type of infrastructure. This latest report offers a summary D+ rating across the respective categories:

[cybercoma]

Given their massive debt, it's a shame they don't have anything to show for it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Funny, but many Canadian truckers prefer the U.S. Interstate Highway System over what's been built in Canada.

"the fastest route between Vancouver and Toronto/Montreal is to go to the United States and take Interstates 90 and 94"

Canada has no heavy lift rocket launching facilities, uses American weather, communications, and GPS satellites, utilizes NOAA and USGS resources having far less of its own, etc. etc. Canadians even use American airports to beat high fares back home !

Edited November 2, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

How do truckers feel about the highways in India? Because that's about as relevant as posting about Canadian highways in a thread about US infrastructure in the US politics forum.

[bush_cheney2004]

How do truckers feel about the highways in India? Because that's about as relevant as posting about Canadian highways in a thread about US infrastructure in the US politics forum.

Maybe, but somebody made such a general comparison for infrastructure spending between the U.S. and other nations. It is clear that Canada has nothing more to show for it, and in some cases, far far less. Just ask any Canadian trucker.

Edited November 3, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

It's always amusing to hear leftwingers talk about infrastructure. It reminds me of the idiots on MSNBC standing in front of the Hoover damn, and other big construction projects, which could never be built nowadays because of their stupid environment regulations.

Hell, Keystone is infrastructure, and how many years have we been waiting for the economic-illiterate-in-chief to approve it?

[cybercoma]

You know environmentalism and infrastructure aren't mutually exclusive, right?

[TimG]

You know environmentalism and infrastructure aren't mutually exclusive, right?

They are today. The enviro motto is 'build nothing anywhere near anyone'.

[Shady]

They are today. The enviro motto is 'build nothing anywhere near anyone'.

And then complain that we don't spend enough on infrastructure.

[TimG]

And then complain that we don't spend enough on infrastructure.

And a big chunk the money that is spent goes to "environmental impact studies" instead of actually building stuff.

[cybercoma]

They are today. The enviro motto is 'build nothing anywhere near anyone'.

Your opinion is ridiculous hyperbole.

[TimG]

Your opinion is ridiculous hyperbole.

Hyperbole? Give me an example of a large infrastructure project in the last 10 years in this country that was not pushed through over the objections of enviros. Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

As you well know, complaints don't come always or only from "enviros"; it comes frequently from property owners, many of whom obviously are not normally part of any "enviro" movement or even inclination.

[TimG]

it comes frequently from property owners, many of whom obviously are not normally part of any "enviro" movement or even inclination.

It makes no difference if they use 'protection of the environment' as a justification for their opposition. They are "enviros" in the public discussion. For example, some environmental groups support nuclear power but the existence of these groups does not negate corrosive effect of the groups who oppose it. Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

It makes no difference if they use 'protection of the environment' as a justification for their opposition. They are "enviros" in the public discussion. For example, some environmental groups support nuclear power but the existence of these groups does not negate corrosive effect of the groups who oppose it.

I don't rate that argument at all. It's a non-starter.

[TimG]

I don't rate that argument at all. It's a non-starter.

It is a fact that we cannot build anything in the country because somebody will raise environmental objections. It makes no difference that you think a group is raising objections for reasons other than a concern for the environment (most enviros are nimbys looking out for their self interest) because regulations in this country have made it extremely difficult to dismiss environmental objections no matter what the true motivation of the objector. Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

It is a fact that we cannot build anything in the country because somebody will raise environmental objections. It makes no difference that you think a group is raising objections for reasons other than a concern for the environment (most enviros are nimbys looking out for their self interest) because regulations in this country have made it extremely difficult to dismiss environmental objections no matter what the true motivation of the objector.

But like I said, the true motivation of the objector, in some instances, is protection of the value of his property, whether that value is strictly financial or otherwise.

I'm not making this hypothetical person's case for him (nor against him). I'm simply stating that "enviro" and "nimby" seems to you to be anyone who objects to industry intrusion...no matter what the reason for his objection. Logically, this accounts for those who object to things like eminent domain as well....all objectors are nimby and enviros.