$1.5t infrastructure plan to be announced today

[BmorePat87]

I figured this is a good place to discuss any news related to this big legislative push.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/11/584940681/trump-to-unveil-long-awaited-1-5-trillion-infrastructure-plan

Initial word is that this will be funded primarily by the states and local governments, with the federal government only shelling out $200b over 10 years that they'll cut from other places.

I guess we have to assume this means a tax hike for state and local (which should go great with the recent changes minimizing how much you can write off of your state and local taxes) and an increase in fees and tolls around states to pay for this.

As it currently stands, federal highway funding is an 80-20 fed-state split while mass transit spending is 50-50. They're looking to make this 80-20 or 90-10 state/local-fed instead.

We should have more details as the day goes on

[Au165]

Intentions are good, execution sounds like it'll struggle.

[Benton]

Won’t work without states imposing massive tax increases. Many (most?) states are broke. The ones that are doing ok probably don’t want to lose reelection bids imposing a huge tax to build a bridge or repair a dam that effects a small portion of their base.

But it’s a decent move for candidate trump (who at this point looks like he’s just going to forget the next three years and fovus on 2020). He’ll get to say he secured billions and billions for really, truly great infrastructure projects but Democrats in states across the country pushed back against the projects because they hate America and want to use crumbling bridges to kill more babies. Should be good fodder for midterm candidates trying to hold on to seats. “The Dems are holding up paving your street because they don’t want you to escape their Obamacare death squads! We need all three branches of state government to save you! Give us complete control or the Democrats will murder your grandma and steal her guns!”

[Yojimbo]

My state (Oregon) just passed a $5.2 billion dollar transportation bill at the end of last year. Not going to wait around for the federal government to fix our bridges and highways.

[*michaelsean*]

Well I guess we can kiss a new bridge here goodbye.

[*michaelsean*]

So does this mean the majority of the federal gas tax will be switched over to the states?

[StLucieBengal]

Excellent. The majority should be state funded. And tax hikes are ok on the state level since several have balanced budget amendments which will force some fiscal responsibility.

[Au165]

(02-12-2018, 12:33 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Excellent.   The majority should be state funded.  And tax hikes are ok on the state level since several have balanced budget amendments which will force some fiscal responsibility.

.....Or,and hang with me for a second, Nothing gets done. This will result in more can kicking.

[Benton]

(02-12-2018, 12:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So does this mean the majority of the federal gas tax will be switched over to the states?

With a few exceptions, it does. The problem is the tax has been flat for a couple decades and, even when considering the times it was raised, has been majorly outpaced by cost.

Just using simple numbers, lets say the feds estimate their construction projects (interstate repairs, bridges, ports, etc) will cost $100. So they implement a federal gas tax and — based off consumption and prices — set the tax at 10% to generate their $100. Jump forward a couple decades. Cost is now $150, but nobody wants to increase the tax, so it's still 10%... which means you're coming up short $50. No big deal, just make that $50 up next year. Except... next year's shortfall is just as bad, so you're short $200. Then $250. Before long, you've got massive shortfalls in spending, your projects cost 5 or 10 times to replace what they would have cost to repair and you've got weak politicians who still won't fix anything because they don't want to have to get a real job.

I'm against needless taxation, but having a bridge that works or a dam that prevents flooding was the point of the tax in the first place. Congress needs to increase it and fix things instead of passing the buck with something like a 20/80 that's just going to result in higher taxes anyway.

[Belsnickel]

My understanding of some preliminary versions of the plan was that it knocked the federal share of infrastructure spending from 50% to 20% and encourages more reliance on public-private partnerships. If you have Burkean tendencies, you are probably applauding this move on its face. However, there are a couple of issues with this when looked at in a more holistic situation.

This is going to result in higher state/local taxes and/or user fees if these things remain entirely in the public's hands. User fees are always an issue because it takes public goods and makes them club. This is usually not a popular move. Increased taxes we all know everyone complains about, but keep in mind that a big part of the recent tax bill was punishing states with higher tax rates. Requiring states to increase taxes after making the move to reduce the deductability of higher state taxes from federal tax is a shitty move.

Public-private partnerships can be hairy. Again, some will have no issue with them. My concern is that public roads are owned by the people. If ownership is transferred to a private entity with the understanding they will fix the issues and keep them open, there are a lot of possible situations for corruption and abuse. There is also the understanding that making this a more competitive system will result in slower completion rates and projects in more rural areas never getting done thanks to less appealing investments and the lack of a solid tax base.

Just my thoughts on this sort of approach to it.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2018, 12:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: .....Or,and hang with me for a second, Nothing gets done. This will result in more can kicking.

Then the state leaders can be held accountable. Having state control on these policies is a plus because eac state can decide how much government they want to pay for.... I have always been in favor of government, just government that we can afford.

[BmorePat87]

So it looks like the only infrastructure project the federal government is going to take on is a wall?

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2018, 02:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then the state leaders can be held accountable. 

Exactly.  There is no money to fund this stuff but Trump will get to blame the state leaders even though all along he knew nothing would get built.

[BengalHawk62]

I know what my state is going to do to come up with the shortfall funds.  Add tolls to our roads. Then they will probably tax the tolls we will have to pay.  Even better!





 

[GMDino]

(02-12-2018, 03:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So it looks like the only infrastructure project the federal government is going to take on is a wall?

Impossible!  Mexico is paying for that!

[GMDino]

(02-12-2018, 04:04 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: I know what my state is going to do to come up with the shortfall funds.  Add tolls to our roads. Then they will probably tax the tolls we will have to pay.  Even better!





 

PA is already top five in what they spend on roads/bridges and they are raising tolls and gas taxes every year.

This should really help.  

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2018, 03:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So it looks like the only infrastructure project the federal government is going to take on is a wall?

That is an actual federal job. Home defense.

It’s up to the states to figure out what they need to sort or.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2018, 03:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.  There is no money to fund this stuff but Trump will get to blame the state leaders even though all along he knew nothing would get built.

This is why it’s public/private partnerships. Plus let’s allow he state governments figure out how much government they can handle every year. Might have to make some cuts to get some of these projects done.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2018, 04:04 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: I know what my state is going to do to come up with the shortfall funds.  Add tolls to our roads. Then they will probably tax the tolls we will have to pay.  Even better!





 

Nothing wrong with toll roads. Use them everyday. They are actually well maintained and the traffic on them is efficient.

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2018, 05:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Nothing wrong with toll roads.   Use them everyday.   They are actually well maintained and the traffic on them is efficient.

But they are not feasible in low traffic/population areas.