Democrats argue that their stimulus proposal must include a massive infrastructure component not only because it will help the economy (which it won’t), but also because the government has been chronically underinvesting in infrastructure in recent decades.
The Congressional Budget Office puts the lie to that claim. This chart is of all public capital spending on infrastructure, from 1956 to 2006:
It’s obvious that both the federal share and state and local share are increasing at a healthy rate (just like most other government spending).
This shows all public spending for infrastructure capital, as well as operation and maintenance:
The picture is the same. Spending on both functions has consistently increased.
This last graph shows only federal spending:
No matter how you look at it, there’s been no significant dropoff in infrastructure spending. Government at all levels is spending more on infrastructure — roads, bridges, transit, water, etc. — than at any time in the post-war era. And that includes the period when we created the National Highway System.
Democrats may want to spend more — they always do. But they can’t argue that there’s been a drop in spending.
These slides are from a CBO powerpoint presentation given in September, 2008.
2nd chart spotlights the growth in operations/maintainence costs
6eorge Jetson Wednesday, January 7th at 9:43AM EST (link)The more you have to operate/maintain,
the higher your operations/maintainence cost will be.
Great, another trillion (remember Obama’s stated $450 billion number comes w/ an expiration date) of stuff that hasn’t yet been willingly funded that we the taxpayers will have to support for the rest of our lives.
Of course you are right!
david farrar Wednesday, January 7th at 9:44AM EST (link)The infrastructure investment of the Obama’s stimulus proposal has nothing to do with repairing the national infrastructure, which isn’t broken to begin with, as you point out, but all about giving states and local governments taxpayers’ money to keep their unionized state employees inflated salaries and benefits packages funded.
Heck! I thought everybody knew that.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Inflation
AskMeLater Wednesday, January 7th at 10:25AM EST (link)Our dollar has lost much of its value over the years. For instance a dollar in 1981 is equal to about $2.34 in 2008.
Not saying that we don’t waste money on these projects or that the American taxpayer should pay for all these new projects. Just saying the value of our dollar has decreased, thus you would expect expenditures to increase. Just as they have for all Americans.
The position being taken is not to be mistaken
For attempted education or righteous accusation
Only a description just an observation of the pitiful
Condition of our degeneration
That's already taken into account
Brian Faughnan Wednesday, January 7th at 10:29AM EST (link)All 3 of the graphs show spending as counted in constant (2006) dollars. Thus they are already adjusted for inflation.
My bad
AskMeLater Wednesday, January 7th at 10:35AM EST (link)Sorry about that. Says so right there above the graphs.
The position being taken is not to be mistaken
For attempted education or righteous accusation
Only a description just an observation of the pitiful
Condition of our degeneration
The Barack Obama Bicycle Path.
johnt Wednesday, January 7th at 11:12AM EST (link)From time immemorial statist gangsters have had love affairs with with public building and construction. To leech wealth off the private or governed sector and waste it on the ostentatious projects pf the ruling class has been a fixation and steady constant for more than 3.000 years. Bad enough our little Chicago hustler is going back to FDR’s idiotic concepts of economics, but does this “progressive” have to take us back to the Sumerians and their ziggurats ?
Underlying this massive rip off is the delusion of grandeur that accrues to the Leader, a monument to his own vision and magnificence, just ask Senator Byrd. Or where he around, Hammurabi. And down through the centuries the dopes fall for it.
“a man’s admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him”. Tocqueville
I'd Like To See More Data
C. E. van Avery Wednesday, January 7th at 3:54PM EST (link)While the data is adjusted for inflation, it does not appear to be adjusted for population growth. More people and businesses mean more infrastructure. Given the U.S. population went from about 170mil in 1956 to 300mil today, one would expect infrastructure spending to increase about twofold. Consumer habits have also changed significantly, with more cars and more miles driven per capita (which shows in the breakdown in the last graph). In short, I have doubts you can conclude much by just looking at inflation-adjusted spending.
The real problem in discussion of infrastructure spending is it appears to be driven by anecdotes and news about bridge failures, power outages, water main breaks, etc….
More Data - OK, remember, you asked for this
E Pluribus Unum Wednesday, January 7th at 4:04PM EST (link)Carthago delenda est