Republicans Should Say ‘No’ to Trump’s Infrastructure Boondoggle

[EasyAce]

By Michael Tanner
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442555/donald-trump-infrastructure-plan-republicans-should-say-no

Stephen Moore, a Trump economic advisor and a man I know and respect, recently told congressional Republicans that,
since Donald Trump won the election, it is their duty to deliver on his agenda — even if his policies are bad ideas. Umm, no.
Bad ideas are bad ideas, even when voters choose them. Otherwise, we all should have gone along with every bad idea that
President Obama proposed over the last eight years.

Moore was talking, in particular, about Trump’s plan to spend $1 trillion or more on infrastructure projects. But, like many of
Trump’s ideas, the infrastructure proposal is less an actual plan than a vague notion. As Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon
put it, “We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks.” Harkening back to FDR, Bannon calls Trump’s plans
“as exciting as the 1930s.” That’s not exactly reassuring.

Supporters of an infrastructure program, at a time of an almost $20 trillion national debt, justify it on two grounds. First, they
correctly note that the federal government can currently borrow relatively cheaply with interest rates so low — primarily because
other investment options, like the euro, are such bad bets. The U.S. may be deep in debt, but we are still the fastest horse in
the glue factory.

And yet even with low rates, we still paid $284 billion in interest payments in 2016. That’s $284 billion that contributes nothing
to economic growth or to advance the legitimate functions of government. Borrowing more for infrastructure spending would
simply increase our interest payments.

Second, Trump and other infrastructure advocates see it as good-old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus. If, however, we have learned
anything in recent economic history, it’s that Keynes isn’t all that he’s cracked up to be.

Infrastructure spending is not likely to deliver the bang for the buck that Trump supporters expect in terms of either job creation
or economic growth. Recall that infrastructure spending under President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill resulted in just 200,000
permanent jobs at a cost to taxpayers of $4.2 million per job. And studies show that, while infrastructure spending may provide
a short-term boost to GDP, it can actually reduce economic growth over the long-term by diverting resources and creativity to
less innovative and productive uses.

This is not to say that there aren’t infrastructure projects that legitimately need to be undertaken. But the federal government
is unlikely to know or care what they are. Indeed, Congress tends to ignore useful projects like road and bridge maintenance,
in favor of more grandiose efforts that can serve as reelection fodder. Why fill potholes when you get yourself photographed
cutting the ribbon in front of something majestic?

Trump’s proposal appears to provide tax credits and other incentives for the private sector to undertake such projects. While
that idea is undoubtedly sounder than direct government management, there is a danger that the credits will end up as a
crony-capitalist reward for Trump’s friends or others with clout in Washington. In other cases, the credits may simply subsidize
projects that would have been undertaken even without taxpayer support.

Democrats, of course, are allergic to even a hint of private-sector involvement. They want Congress to get back to their preferred
role of picking winners and losers — and dispensing pork-barrel largess. One can almost hear Chuck Schumer and Senate
Democrats salivating at the prospect of cutting deals to spend all that money.

In his famous “Speech to the Electors of Bristol,” Edmund Burke told his constituents that an elected representative owes them
“his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Republicans in Congress were justly criticized for being supine in the face of the Obama administration. That doesn’t mean they
should be equally pusillanimous when dealing with a President Trump. They should support him when his proposals make sense
— and oppose him when they don’t.

One place they should start is by saying “No” to this unaffordable and wasteful infrastructure boondoggle.

— Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement
Crisis. You can follow him on his blog, TannerOnPolicy.com.

[Oceander]

Trump's infrastructure plans are even worse than Obamas because if followed through they simply make Republicans just as bad as democrats when it comes to wasting money.  You kind of give up your right to object to continued growth in entitlement spending if you've just blown $1 trillion in unnecessary infrastructure spending. 

[bolobaby]

I've been thinking a little about this and immigration in the same vein.

First, some quick context: I know a guy who was brought here illegally from Ecuador when he was a baby. He's in his 20s now, but has always known the United States as his home. He's a valuable IT worker, and a solid all-around guy, but a no-fault-of-his-own illegal.

(More on this here: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,234726.msg1146265.html#msg1146265 plus some additional ideas around a solution, which include mandatory self-deportation.)

What to do, what to do?

What if instead of mandatory self-deportation, we offered a service-for-citizenship option? There's always the military side of things, but I would want to cap that as I wouldn't want too many non-natives in the service. But something akin to the French Foreign Legion could work.

Beyond that, I was thinking of a non-paying civil service option, akin to the way the National Guard works. After an initial training period (possibly paid for that due to the need to keep someone in training for months), the citizen-candidate would be obligated to spend one weekend a month and two weeks a year in service on domestic projects. This could be anything from infrastructure projects to cleaning trash off the roadside. The term of service would be four years, and they would not be paid. If they missed any required service, without pre-authorized leave, they would be subject to immediate deportation.

This would compliment a military service option and would - again - be based on seniority. Therefore, the guy I know who has been here forever would get first dibs over some Somali refugee who is just now trying to immigrate.

Just a possible option to deal with folks who really deserve some kind of option since they were never really at fault for their illegal immigration status to begin with.

[Oceander]

I've been thinking a little about this and immigration in the same vein.

First, some quick context: I know a guy who was brought here illegally from Ecuador when he was a baby. He's in his 20s now, but has always known the United States as his home. He's a valuable IT worker, and a solid all-around guy, but a no-fault-of-his-own illegal.

(More on this here: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,234726.msg1146265.html#msg1146265 plus some additional ideas around a solution, which include mandatory self-deportation.)

What to do, what to do?

What if instead of mandatory self-deportation, we offered a service-for-citizenship option? There's always the military side of things, but I would want to cap that as I wouldn't want too many non-natives in the service. But something akin to the French Foreign Legion could work.

Beyond that, I was thinking of a non-paying civil service option, akin to the way the National Guard works. After an initial training period (possibly paid for that due to the need to keep someone in training for months), the citizen-candidate would be obligated to spend one weekend a month and two weeks a year in service on domestic projects. This could be anything from infrastructure projects to cleaning trash off the roadside. The term of service would be four years, and they would not be paid. If they missed any required service, without pre-authorized leave, they would be subject to immediate deportation.

This would compliment a military service option and would - again - be based on seniority. Therefore, the guy I know who has been here forever would get first dibs over some Somali refugee who is just now trying to immigrate.

Just a possible option to deal with folks who really deserve some kind of option since they were never really at fault for their illegal immigration status to begin with.

I think that's an option that should be discussed; it's not perfect but it's headed in the right direction toward a grownup solution to the current immigration problems. 

[EasyAce]

Trump's infrastructure plans are even worse than Obamas because if followed through they simply make Republicans just as bad as democrats when it comes to wasting money.

I don't want to bust your bubble, but when it comes to wasting money and flouting the Constitution alike, Republicans proved they
could be just as bad if not worse than Democrats when George W. Bush had a Republican Congress and (still) a budget surplus,
and they went on a binge enough to make Democrats and drunken sailors resemble small government pikers.

[Night Hides Not]

I don't want to bust your bubble, but when it comes to wasting money and flouting the Constitution alike, Republicans proved they
could be just as bad if not worse than Democrats when George W. Bush had a Republican Congress and (still) a budget surplus,
and they went on a binge enough to make Democrats and drunken sailors resemble small government pikers.

That's why I refer to it as the UniParty.

[Fishrrman]

The one piece of "infrastructure" that I want to see completed is the border barrier with Mexico.

The rest is negotiable.

[bolobaby]

I think that's an option that should be discussed; it's not perfect but it's headed in the right direction toward a grownup solution to the current immigration problems. 

@Oceander

Talked to that guy last night. He was gung-ho on the idea of service for citizenship - either military or civil. On the civil side he said, "Hell, that's something I might do anyway even if there wasn't a citizenship component." (See - like I said - a good guy. The kind of no-fault illegal you would want to have an option for.)

Funny thing, though, during the conversation: he whips out his drivers license and in red letters at the top it said, "No legal status." That is, "I'm an illegal immigrant." So it's not like this guy is living in the shadows. The government knows he is here, had him in their sights while giving him a drivers license, and choses to do nothing.

[LMAO]

Republicans should say no to Trump's Infrastructure Boondoggle

The question is will they?