Randall Wray-k Donald Trump-i buruz

Expert [Randall Wray] Says Trump’s State of the Union Infrastructure Plans Don’t Add Up

“Unfortunately, Trump will be a failed president.

(https://www.inverse.com/article/40742-state-of-union-trump-infrastructure)

(i) Trump presidentearen hitzak

President Donald Trump is still intent on being an infrastructure president. His State of the Union address Tuesday night dealt at length with his plan to commit more than $1.5 trillion [1 amerikar trilioi = 1 europar bilioi] to rebuild America’s roads, bridges, and more. But an economics professor and expert on the president’s so-called Trumponomics tells Inverse there’s little reason to expect he can actually follow through on such a huge goal.

“As we rebuild our industries, it is also time to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. America is a nation of builders,” Trump said before the joint session of the United States Congress. “We built the Empire State Building in just one year — is it not a disgrace that it can now take 10 years just to get a permit approved for a simple road? I am asking both parties to come together to give us the safe, fast, reliable, and modern infrastructure our economy needs and our people deserve.”

Trump went on to say he wanted Congress to produce a bill that spends at least $1.5 trillion on infrastructure investment, with additional resources coming from state and local governments and the private sector. He said it’s all in the name of permanently fixing the infrastructure deficit, which is the widening gap between the government’s decreased infrastructure spending and the increasing costs of what it will take to fix and replace what is now in disrepair.

“Any bill must also streamline the permitting and approval process — getting it down to no more than two years, and perhaps even one,” he added, bringing in his avowed distaste for regulations and red tape. “Together, we can reclaim our building heritage. We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, and waterways across our land. And we will do it with American heart, American hands, and American grit.

(ii) Randall Wray

Inverse reached out to L. Randall Wray, who is an economics professor at New York’s Bard College and a senior scholar at the university’s Levy Economics Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. He offered his take on whether Trump can accomplish any of this. His outlook is a gloomy one for the president and his supporters.

(iii) Galdera/erantzunak

What reaction do you have to the president’s statements about infrastructure in the State of the Union?

The American Society of Civil Engineers infrastructure report card puts the gap at $2 trillion spending for the next 10 years. This is, in my view, a conservative estimate if we are to compete with China and other nations that are well ahead of the USA. In any case, the president has not spelled out a time frame, and his number falls far short of the ASCE estimated needs. The president also seems to rely on leveraging state and local government spending — meaning, I suppose, that federal spending will be far below the $1.5 trillion target. But most state and local governments are still struggling in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. And they’ve got their own problems with underfunded pensions, and all the other responsibilities the federal government has pushed onto them since the era of “devolution” began under the Nixon administration. They cannot be expected to provide much “leverage.” It is good to get some “buy-in” to ensure projects are needed, but the formula should be something like 90 percent federal dollars for every 10 percent of state and local government participation.

What realistically might we expect to happen, based on Trump’s record?

Unfortunately, Trump will be a failed president. He does not know how to get legislation through Congress; he has not learned the lesson that running for office is different from leading while in office. He cannot build coalitions. Nothing will come of this proposal. And right now, neither party in Congress is on board with a major spending program as they fight over deficits. They will promote more austerity (especially the Democrats now that they have Trump’s tax “reforms” to fight about) and hence will fight to widen the infrastructure gap, not close it.

What can we learn from past presidents’ efforts to invest in infrastructure?

If we look back to the Roosevelt administration, we can see how to modernize the economy. In the thirties, the US had a 19th century infrastructure. The New Deal programs brought the US into the 20th century; early post-war spending (largely justified by the cold war) continued the thrust through the sixties. After that, the federal government lost its way. So we are in a position similar to that faced by Roosevelt — an infrastructure of the mid-20th century that is totally inappropriate for the 21st. We need an effort similar to Roosevelt’s — with an alphabet soup of programs beginning with a new WPA that provides jobs and creates infrastructure. It is very instructive to look at the 1941 report of Roosevelt’s National Resources Planning Board for a roadmap — it inventoried needs around the USA and then formulated a plan.

What do you make of his call to streamline the permitting process for new infrastructure projects?

I am skeptical about the proposal to slash the time involved in permitting projects. Projects need a thorough review; they often will significantly impact local communities (including in many cases property owners) as well as the natural environment. This sounds to me like an effort to avoid a democratic process to ensure that all those affected have time to review and discuss possible impacts.

Stephanie Kelton: azpiegitura eta gastu publikoa

How to Spend Trillions on ‘Infrastructure’JAN. 31, 2018

There was only one reference to the deficit in last night’s State of the Union speech, and it had nothing to do with the federal budget. I found that refreshing — we can carry a deficit if the money’s spent wisely — but that’s another story. What President Trump talked about was America’s staggering infrastructure deficit, a whopping $2 trillion fault line in the backbone of the American economy, according to the latest estimates from the American Society of Civil Engineers. [1 amerikar trilioi : 1 europar bilioi]

The president’s proposal sounded like an ambitious plan to take a big bite out of the problem. He urged Congress to produce a bill that would “generate at least $1.5 trillion” to modernize our decrepit infrastructure. The problem — at least for Democrats — is that the bulk of the financing is apparently supposed to come from private investors, who would ultimately shift most of those costs onto the public in the form of user fees and tolls. Most Democrats won’t sign on to this kind of legislation.

Yet without the support of many Democrats, there can be no bill. So where does that leave us?

Doing nothing is itself costly. As water mains break, roadways deteriorate and bridges crumble, businesses forgo trillions in sales, families lose an estimated $3,400 a year in disposable income, and our economy sacrifices millions of jobs. That’s why Larry Summers, the former Democratic Treasury secretary, urged the next president to go big on infrastructure spending.

If Democrats were in control, they would be pushing not only for the brick-and-mortar projects the president spoke of last night but also for enormous investments in high-speed broadband and renewable energy. Unfortunately, the president wants to spend more money on 20th-century technology — so-called clean coal — instead of modernizing our electric grid and reorienting our economy away from coal and other fossil fuels.

So how can Democrats find a way to get things into an infrastructure bill that (a) are good policy and things they would want anyway and (b) can be tied to goals of the Trump administration and a certain number of moderate Republicans in Congress?

If done right, infrastructure can actually deliver in four areas the president emphasized again and again in his speech last night: a boon for the economy and the Trump administration; addressing the high cost of health care; tackling the opioid epidemic ravaging the country; and ensuring the safety of the American people.

Mr. Trump talked about repealing the individual mandate but offered no plan to make good on his campaign promise to give every American health care. He talked about opioids and helping people get treatment but offered no specific plan to deal with the crisis. He talked about terrorist threats and keeping Americans safe but said nothing about the threat of epidemics and bioterrorism.

(ii) Demokratak eta errepublikazaleak

What Democrats can propose that will touch on all those areas: a national network of community health centers.

“America is a nation of builders,” the president said. A bipartisan plan for hundreds of C.H.C.s across America would reduce the cost of health care, bring down premiums, deal with the opioid crisis and help keep Americans safe by serving as centers of preparedness for epidemic and bioterrorist events.

America’s health care system is a costly, bureaucratic mess, and virtually every American knows it. C.H.C.s will improve health outcomes, remove primary care from insurance coverage and reduce the cost of health insurance premiums. Bringing premiums down will be critical for Mr. Trump, because according to the Congressional Budget Office, the effective repeal of the individual mandate will drive insurance premiums up by as much as 10 percent for millions of Americans.

C.H.C.s can serve as treatment centers for services related to the opioid epidemic. They can also act as centers of preparedness for epidemic and bioterrorist events, helping to keep Americans safe.

The blueprint for such a bipartisan plan already exists. Democrats and Republicans just need to come together to build on it. Community health centers already provide services to millions of Americans, and they do it at an exceptionally low cost — less than $1,000 per person per year. For a fraction of what we’re paying now, we could provide a free base of primary care with mental-health and dental care as part of a large-scale build-out of C.H.C.s.

They already have bipartisan support. Of course, with a plan of this size and scale, C.H.C.s would offer bureaucratic challenges. Some centers already use group care and community health workers to deliver care to their communities, but new centers could even be part of a federal jobs program.

In this hyperpartisan era, perhaps Democrats and Republicans can use infrastructure to make common cause around opioids, jobs, health care costs and keeping us safe.