By Stephen Macaulay
On the homepage of Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) on June 5 there were three items under the heading “Latest News.” Two out of three give a good sense of what DeFazio, who was one of the founders—with Bernie Sanders, Ron Dellums, Maxine Waters, Lane Evans, and Thomas Andrews—of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, evidently thinks infrastructure means.
One of the press releases announces the restoration of Amtrak service in Oregon (“As Chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, DeFazio negotiated $1.7 billion for Amtrak in the American Rescue Plan, so service could be restored.”).
The other says that DeFazio managed to get a $5.5 million grant from the Department of Transportation to fix the runway and taxiway lighting system of the Eugene Airport, which is within the boundaries of the district DeFazio represents.
On June 4, a $547 billion bill was presented by DeFazio for infrastructure spending. The monies are to be spent over five years.
Included in the proposal is an increase in investment for roads and bridges by about 54%; this would be $343 billion, or about 63% of the total. Then $109 billion goes to public transit programs (not everyone owns a sport utility vehicle or pickup truck despite what might seem to be the case); and $95 billion for rail, for both people (e.g., Amtrak) and goods (somehow things need to get to those giant Amazon warehouses before they are loaded into Prime trucks).
And there’s your $547 billion.
The devil is in the details, of course, and one of the pointiest portions for conservatives is the part where there is some sense of how this is going to be paid for.
That said, if looked at in the macro, roads, bridges, and rail seem to be reasonable places to spend. And as for the revenue part, well arguably a portion can be received by productivity increases.
That is, according to Infrastructurereportcard.org:
“The U.S. has been underfunding its highway system for years, resulting in a $836 billion backlog of highway and bridge capital needs. The bulk of the backlog ($420 billion) is in repairing existing highways, while $123 billion is needed for bridge repair, $167 billion for system expansion, and $126 for system enhancement (which includes safety enhancements, operational improvements, and environmental projects). The Federal Highway Administration estimates that each dollar spent on road, highway, and bridge improvements returns $5.20 in the form of lower vehicle maintenance costs, decreased delays, reduced fuel consumption, improved safety, lower road and bridge maintenance costs, and reduced emissions as a result of improved traffic flow.”
That was written in 2017.
Does anyone think there have been notable improvements since then?
One of the things that there seems to be bipartisan support on is that there needs to be more reshoring of products that are now largely produced in other countries, things like the PPE and ventilators and such that hobbled the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. — hobbled it for months. And there are plenty of consumer goods that are produced in other countries.
But given the state of the roadways and rail lines in the U.S., does a corporate executive with fiduciary responsibilities think that a country with an infrastructure that has been treated like a brain tumor at an urgent care (“Take two aspirin and call me in the morning”) rather than at Johns Hopkins is a good place to setup shop? Just-in-time inventory doesn’t work particularly well when one’s trucks are stuck in traffic or one’s inventory is delayed in a railyard.
As Voltaire allegedly said, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
On the one hand we have President Biden going for the perfect and on the other we have some Republicans who are, at the end of the day, simply providing a dash of spice to the status quo, which is woefully insufficient.
We need the good.