It may surprise some people to know that a pro-business conservative, such as myself, would argue on behalf of increased, sustained public investment and would be willing to support a shared burden of higher taxes or public borrowing to support it. And what is that? Addressing the persistently and chronically underfunded infrastructure. It seems that the only thing politicians from both parties have been in agreement on is kicking the can down the road (just as they've done with other contentious issues like Medicare and social security funding).
This is not to say that infrastructure hasn't been in the political spotlight. It was used as a key rationalization for the recently enacted "stimulus" bill. My criticisms with the discussion of infrastructure in the bill included its relatively small percentage in the $787B package, the disingenuous use of obsoleted Keynesian multiplier statistics as though infrastructure is an economic Miracle Grow and the assumption that all infrastructure projects are equally worthy of public investment (e.g., the infamous Bridge to Nowhere versus, say, the Hoover Dam). I did not believe that there was sufficient slack in engineering/construction firm capacity (e.g., engineers and hardhats, materials and supplies, etc.) to staff pent-up demand for infrastructure projects and was worried about project funding subjected to political versus merit-based criteria, not to mention possible inflationary pressures and possible fraud or waste endemic in the government indiscriminately throwing money at a problem, including infrastructure. Engineering/infrastructure firms, knowing the fickleness of government spending, do not want to invest in increasing capacity unless there is a sustained public commitment to infrastructure spending; infrastructure spending may be high on Obama's agenda today, but I can almost hear Dave Mason singing in the background, "Will you still love me tomorrow?" We periodically hear politicians take the podium in the aftermath of a newsworthy infrastructure problem to say "we've got to do something about this", say when a Minneapolis bridge collapses, there are rolling brownouts resulting from a problem in the US electrical grid, or a levee in New Orleans fails. But then the stories fade from headlines, and politicians go back to business as usual...
Why would a business conservative be in favor of higher government spending for infrastructure? Doesn't that contradict a key political criterion of limited government spending? No. Basically, government-related costs are just part of business costs. There are various other costs that directly relate to infrastructure, e.g., repairs to company vehicles resulting from bad roads, delays in procuring parts or shipping to customers, the amount of time taxicabs spend in heavy traffic, disruptions in electrical power to run a factory, health costs accruing from decaying water pipes, unavailability of high-speed Internet to telecommute from the suburbs or to facilitate web conferencing versus travel costs to business meetings, etc.
I'm strongly in favor of a sustained, long-term commitment to renovating America's infrastructure, with projects funded in priority by nonpartisan, merit-based criteria. In closing, I present the ASCE's 2009 report card of infrastructure, which I consider a starting point for political action. [These grades are quoted from a website I recommend for additional information: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org]
Aviation......................D
Bridges.......................C
Dams..........................D
Drinking Water................D-
Energy........................D+
Hazardous.Waste...............D
Inland Waterways..............D-
Levees........................D-
Public Parks and Recreation.. C-
Rail..........................C-
Roads.........................D-
Schools.......................D
Solid.Waste...................C+
Transit.......................D
Wastewater....................D-
America's Infrastructure GPA D
Estimated 5 Year Investment Need:
$2.2 Trillion
