Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nancy Pelosi proposes infrastructure bank

  1. Apr 19, 2008 #1
    This is the sort of thing that could save the US. Besides getting people working, if the proects are chosen thoughtfully travel time & costs could be reduced by eliminating bottlenecks, congestion, etc. Materials are almost always produced locally also, which would create more jobs. The government could realistically pump many hundreds of billions (or >$1trillion) of dollars into the economy by 2015 without doing "too much" (as John McCain thinks). Just recall the colossal effort China (& many other countries actually, including Canada) is making on their highways, railways, etc:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1821178120080419


    Hillary Clinton is on the right track, but she isn't thinking big enough imho:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid={4B81349E-8B5D-44C5-97D8-59D1A2AC1BA8}
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 19, 2008 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The government's treasury already finances infrastructure! Or doesn't because they are deferring to Iraq or Defense or other expeditures.

    If this other entity is set up, will they have authority to tax or charge fees? Will politicians then turn around and whine about the Infrastructure Authority, is charging too much or has too much authority.


    How about some fiscal discpline in Congress/White House - for a change? I'd be happy to see less Racketeering and Corruption on the part of Congress and the Administration.


    Why not simply bill people on the basis of expenses. If the Iraq war costs $20K/per person, send out a bill to everyone for their fair share of the cost of the war.
     
  4. Apr 21, 2008 #3

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Keeping as much public works administration at the local and regional levels as possible is better, in my opinion. We could use an overhaul of the interstate railway system, maybe. The Federal Highway Administration's $40 billion budget is enough, though. Rather than increasing the number of projects they fund, what they should do is change the competitive bidding and project management process so that projects are actually completed on time and under budget.
     
  5. Apr 22, 2008 #4
    I don't know what this is doing in Canadian media:

    http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D906REGG0

    Looks like $1 trillion would be just "a good start!" & local governments are supposed to pay for it all?
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2008
  6. Jun 13, 2008 #5

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Back 4 months ago -

    Finally! A Serious Proposal on Infrastructure
    Wednesday, Feb 13 2008, 11:14AM

    http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6554078.html

    From - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1926
    Last Action: Jun 12, 2008: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held.
    This bill is identical to H.R. 3401 (Status: Introduced).

    I heard about this today. It seems to be moving forward - somewhat.
     
  7. Jun 13, 2008 #6

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm concerned about this turning into yet another boondoggle, guiding our tax dollars into the pockets of the wealthy and well-connected. Why doesn't Congress ban earmarks, and task some committees with the responsibility of identifying infrastructure work that NEEDS to be done, and can provide a return on investment? There is a lot of work that needs to be done to improve our bridges and roads and rails. Tim Mellon bought Maine's premiere rail system, stripped it of rail and rolling stock that could be scrapped for easy money, and discontinued "unprofitable" lines that could be really profitable now with the current high fuel prices. Before he gutted the Maine Central RR, there were once lots of decent little rail yards that could have been operated as log-transfer yards to keep thousands of trucks off local roads and allow cheap transportation of pulp-wood and saw-logs to mills. This would not only have allowed loggers to reduce transportation costs - it would have kept countless trucks (in the 100-120K GVW range) off large stretches of public highway, saving the wear and tear on the road surfaces and road bases.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2008
  8. Jun 13, 2008 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, how exactly is this thing financed? It just sounds like a new government agency (under the DOT or completely separate?) that funds road projects with new federal taxes.
     
  9. Jun 13, 2008 #8
    I could have sworn that we already had a Federal Highway Administration, which also happens to be the main instrument the Feds use to intrude on state prerogatives that are outside their Constitutional mandate to control directly (i.e., drinking ages).
     
  10. Jun 13, 2008 #9

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There were various Surface Transportation Acts over the years.

    There was:

    Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991.

    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

    Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

    http://www.bts.gov/laws_and_regulations/


    It sounds something like a continuation. Certainly the money spent has not managed to prevent deterioration of thousands of bridges across the country. What may be new in this is that it extends to municipal water systems and other civil works, besides transportation. Apparently various state are pleading poverty and want federal funds. Of course, since taxes were cut, funding on infrastructure was reduced, and maintenance was deferred. The problem is that systems are starting to fail.

    It doesn't make sense for the federal government to be collecting taxes from the populations of various states, and then turning around and spending the money as federal grants.


    One thing I noted in previous Surface Transporation programs, which were allegedly transportation, were in fact not transportation.

    Federal Highway Administration is one of several DOT agencies.
    http://www.dot.gov/DOTagencies.htm
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2008
  11. Jun 16, 2008 #10

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Gee, if only the government would apply a small user tax, say based on how much fuel one used, and apply it to infrastructure repairs and construction. Sounds like a good idea. I wonder why no one has thought of it before!:yuck:
     
  12. Jun 17, 2008 #11
    And what flat tax do you propose if the war costs $1721 per person?

    Cost of war.
     
  13. Jun 17, 2008 #12
    There is speculation that the North American Superhighway will be built from Texas to Minnesota to bring in the new North American Union between principle members the US, Canda and Mexico. These nations will then adopt a common currency, the Amero, in order to compete with the EU and the euro. It is conceivable that a National Infrastructure Bank is the first step.
    Of course these are ideas which may simply be used to increase the agenda of NAFTA and any other continental systems in the near future.

    Amero - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amero
    North American Union - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union
    Superhighway - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA_superhighway
     
  14. Jun 17, 2008 #13

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    or $344 / year and is going to tail off in 2 years or 4 years depending on which chad you punch.

    Medicare $1466 / person / year and growing fast
    Medicaid $1000 / person / year
    Social Security $1953 / person / year and growing fast
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2008
  15. May 11, 2009 #14
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nancy Pelosi proposes infrastructure bank
  1. Pelosi-Obama 2007? (Replies: 9)

Loading...