There's nothing wrong with taking on debt to finance long-term capital expenditures like infrastructure. In fact, marrying the term of payment for a major project to the useful life of that project might even be preferable to a pay-as-you-go scenario.
The root of this country's fiscal problems is that we have been taking on debt to finance short-term operating expenditures. This is the equivalent of borrowing money to pay for groceries -- or, even worse, running up $5,000 in credit card debt for a trip to Disney World -- and paying it off over ten years. Nobody with even a rudimentary understanding of finance or economics would tell you that this is a good idea. In fact, it's a recipe for disaster.
Actually, not short term operating expenses: consumption subsidies and corrupt tax breaks. Welfare (otherwise known as vote and donation buying), both personal and corporate.
PREEEE-CISELY (think of my Theodore Roosevelt voice).
In fact, Hamilton, with Madison’s blessing, urged long-term debt that was REDUCED through a sinking fund. When repaid, use more long-term debt to build more. It is the American Express form of credit.
You raise excellent points. However we are where we are. They can keep borrowing money like drunk sailors but when interest rates climb (and they will) the interest on the debt alone will consume greater and greater chunks of the budget.
The problem with Infrastructure investment is that it is managed and allocated by the US Congress, the most corrupt institution in the world.
Less than 1/2 the money will actually be spent on infrastructure, if that.
While infrastructure IS a good investment, Congress will eff it up.