Posted on 11/30/2016 8:38:38 AM PST by SeekAndFind
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. Y
“Moore was talking, in particular, about Trump’s plan to spend $1 trillion or more on infrastructure projects.”
Funny thing about liberals, they LOVE it when Obama talks about such a thing but hate it when Trump does.
>>We already ARE spending lots of money on infrastructure.
$1.9B is a long way from $1T. Do you know what a mile of Interstate highway costs? Widening a bridge? Building a Clean Coal plant?
This guy is worried about corruption with Trump who's not even taken office, when we've had 25+ years of reckless government corruption from top to bottom in all directions?
What BS.
>>we just saw an administration waste trillions without much to show for it.
We saw a corrupt administration that turned every spending project into a handout to constituents and donors and cronies and overseas dictators.
If he decides that it is still a good idea, I hope it is limited to infrastructure that the Feds are responsible for, and not just divided out to the states.
I've never heard him say this. Of course, this is the globalist Neocon Review so they would be all in favor of spending money collected by the IRS from Americans on building roads and bridges in Afghanistan and Iraq and all over the world, but for Trump to improve roads and bridges in the USA is like Hitler or Caesar or something.
What I have heard Trump say repeatedly is that our roads, bridges and airports are deteriorating and often no longer meet First World standards and need to be upgraded.
Of course, what an infrastructure bill looks like after Congress gets through with it is an open question. Obama's stimulus spending turned out to be primarily an effort to ensure that federal and state government employees were not harmed by the recession.
As Americans, we should be ashamed of our bedraggled, outdated airports,many built in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Obama spent almost a trillion dollars and we saw no infrastructure improvements at all. Surely the US taxpayers deserve to get something tangible from the money Pres. Trump will spend. That alone would buy him enormous support and good will among the voters.
National Review should sit down and shut up until they actually SEE what Trump’s plan is.
Sorry #Never Trumpers, you perpetual whining for the next 4-8 years is going to be met with contempt. You did everything you could to elect Hillary. Conservatives may forgive you for that but we will never forget.
If there are shovel-ready jobs ....
Dear Mr. Tanner:
Piss off.
F.O.A.D.
Move to Somalia.
Or any combination of the above.
We're more or less spending more money we don't have to buy votes and to strangle the real economy. A political and economic death spiral.
Tanner’s affiliation with NR, an obsolete mess that devoted an entire issue to trashing Trump, thereby promoting HRC, is all I need to dropkick his article into the nearest trash heap without comment.
Infrastructure bump for later....
“legitimate functions of government.” You mean like making sure this country has an infrastructure to promote growth?
Whatever happened to the idea of printing “United States Notes” and lending them interest-free to municipalities for capital and infrastructure projects? Wages would be paid in U.S. Notes and spent.
Theory is that this would grow the economy without added debt.
The potential inflation would be constantly watched, and the notes would be taken out of circulation as they come back through the banking system should inflation grow too quickly.
Tanner thinks “great thoughts” & writes for a living.
What has he actually DONE - that we should respect his opinion on this matter?
This article is a continuation of the same. The author has NO IDEA what Trump's plan is and is merely screaming in horror about the IDEA of “Infrastructure spending”.
Odd how this some GOPE bot, who was never bothered by the trillions O and the GOP Establishment Congress spent, NOW suddenly wants to posture as a “Fiscal Hawk”?
It a desperate pathetic need to find something to whine at Trump about rather then get over their butt hurt their guy lost the Primary
Trump wants to do it on time and under budget.
NR should know Trump hates to waste money.
This isn’t the government spending money on pork barrel projects.
We have a legitimate infrastructure need which would create a lot of good-paying private sector jobs.
Which would boost economic growth.
We the People should just say “NO!!!” To the National Review!
.
>> “Why does he assume Trump will do things the same way?” <<
National Review, in spite of the erroneous opinions of notable Republicans, has always been a mildly Center-Left rag in the mold of its creator.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.