The Pointless Fight Over The “I” Word

So it appears that our nation’s governors have met with President George W. Milhous Bush about more funding for infrastructure projects and come away empty (here – more of the same from the Bushco cabal)…

Bush this month signed an economic stimulus package to send $300 to $1,200 rebate checks to millions of Americans and to offer tax incentives to businesses. He opposed including infrastructure projects because “it's not really a stimulative way to get the economy going,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said Monday.

I can see that Perino knows as much about economics as he does concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis (here).

To get an example of a country investing in infrastructure and experiencing economic growth as a result, this tells you the following about Thailand…

The Thai economy has been stalled due to a crisis in confidence, owing largely to the political and policy uncertainties that followed the Sept 19, 2006, coup. ''Many are not spending, because of uncertainties about the economy, uncertainties about their jobs and future earnings,'' Mr Surapong said.

''How will we rebuild confidence? The state has to start the process.''

The pro-growth policy stance comes after the state planning agency yesterday raised its growth forecast for 2008 by a half-point to between 4.5% to 5.5%.

The National Economic and Social Development Board said that the economy last year grew 4.8%, up from earlier forecasts of 4.5%.

New investment in basic infrastructure will be the main engine for growth, with the Samak Sundaravej government pledging hundreds of billions of baht in new programmes in five areas: Bangkok mass transit; logistics; water management; education; and public health.

Mr Surapong (Thailand’s finance minister), a medical doctor by training, said the megaproject investments would not only boost growth, but also would strengthen the country's long-term competitiveness.

And as the story notes, Thailand’s economy grew by 4.8 percent last year, which outperformed this country as noted here (not sure of the math, but I believe that’s close enough).

And Jim Hightower tells us here how we arrived at this sorry state…

The first W--George Washington --was on board with using public funds to provide the new country with a solid infrastructure, including an extensive system of postal roads and canals. Jefferson stepped up with tax dollars for the Louisiana Purchase. Even in a time of civil war, Honest Abe saw the need for a transcontinental railroad, the Homestead Act, and a public system of land-grant colleges. Teddy Roosevelt--a Republican-- pushed for our sterling network of national parks and created the National Forest Service. FDR put America to work building courthouses and dams, planting windbreaks and arbors, creating music and plays--jewels that are still with us. Ike, a fiscal conservative, saw the need to launch the Interstate Highway System. Lyndon Johnson fought for crucial investments in hospitals, schools, water systems, and parks.

From the early 1950s into the 1970s, total public spending on America's physical plant (including money put up by local, state, and federal agencies) amounted to about 3% of our Gross Domestic Product. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, this investment in the public good fell victim to posturing budget whackers and dropped well below 2% of our GDP--a cut of more than a one third.

The situation has worsened under the Bushites, who are sworn enemies of public investment in anything but the military and their corporate cronies. While federal infrastructure outlays in the 1960s were equal to the amounts spent by state and local governments, locals are now putting up three times what the feds spend, with the federal investment shrinking this year to an abysmal 0.7% of GDP.

Of course, George W has a fib to fit every figure, including this deceit: "Infrastructure is always a difficult issue," he said recently. "And I, frankly, feel like we've upheld our responsibility at the federal level with the highway bill." Well, frankly, George, you haven't. Not even close. Experts point out that your $286 billion bill is more than $30 billion short of the bare minimum needed simply to bring America's once proud highway system up to the low standard of "adequate." And what you provide is way short of what's required for rail, mass transit, smart highways, and other transportation needs.

Believe it or not, though, there actually is a tiny bit of good news here, and it is that the only veto by Dubya overridden by the 110th Congress thus far (pretty sure about that; can’t find any others) was for a water resources infrastructure and environmental protection bill last November here. So at least those on Capitol Hill know about the importance of keeping this country from utterly crumbling (more so about keeping their jobs, though, I'll admit).

Of course, it’s hard to do that when the money is going somewhere else, and this tells us where (as if we didn’t know already).