02-12-2018, 02:40 PM
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.
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.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
