We've Got Phoney-Baloney Jobs Up the Ying-Yang, Say America's Mayors! All We Need Is the Money To Pay For Them!

When the history of this awful moment of bailout hysteria is written, there'll be a chapter or 20 on the complete bogosity of what might call "the infrastructure flim-flam"—the idea that government can boostrap the economy out its funk by hiring two guys to dig a hole and a couple more to fill it in.

Don't you see? It's the perfect plan!, as Batman's Riddler might exclaim. In fact, one only wonders why they don't hire three guys to fill the holes, thereby cutting unemployment to negative-something.

Then again, taxing Peter to pay Paul to build a parking deck with solar panels for Mary just might not be the sort of economic activity that, you know, accomplishes anything other than creating even more inefficient and generally non-productive public-sector spending with a major administrative dead-weight loss on the top.

Who cares, though, right, because the important thing, in the words of New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and countless others, is that we don't just stand there, do something! And when it comes to wasting taxpayer money on what used to be called make-work projects, the nation's mayors are true visionaries. From a CBS4 account:

Stressing that investing in Main Street will help Wall Street, the nation's mayors have gathered in Washington D.C. to push for emergency federal aid to fund infrastructure projects.

Led by U.S Conference of Mayors President Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, the mayors, including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaigosa, will release their second report on a number of local 'ready-to-go' infrastructure projects, those which can be started and completed in two years, if the emergency funding were made available.

According to the report, the 'ready to go' projects include Community Development Block Grants, transit, highway infrastructure, green jobs, school modernization, public safety and public housing.

Whole account here.

And if you want to crash your browser with over 4MB (and 803 PDF pages) of hot steaming pork projects laid out in loving, excrutiating, and blood-pressure-popping detail by the United States Conference of Mayors, then look upon this document and abandon all hope.

Among the highlights:

  • a proposed "O'Malley Road Reconstruction" in Anchorage, Alaska, that will cost $30 million but provide 300 (count 'em!) jobs;
  • a Gadsen, Alabama "Hoke Street Sidewalk Construction to serve new Department of Human Resources facility" that's a real steal at $150,000 but will take almost surviving members of the Allman Brothers Band off the public dole (at last!);
  • Police Facility Solar Panels for Lake Havasu City, Arizona, for only $400,000 and 75 jobs;
  • Stormwater Settlement Ponds for Beloit, Wisconsin for $1,428 million and five whole jobs, which will feed a family of four in the Badger State, especially if they only eat government cheese;

And, literally, so much more it's virtually impossible to document.

But the mayors have. Don't you know that the Columbia Avenue storm sewer in St. John, Indiana needs "additional capacity" (and it will only cost $275,000 and provide 15 Hoosiers good, decent jobs)? Or that Manhattan, Kansas can finally (finally!) coordinate the traffic lights on Fort Riley Boulevard for a measly $71,250 (sure it will add only one job to the economy, but one is almost twice as much as zero when you think about!)? And that for barely over $4 million, Atlanta, Georgia can install "reflective or green roofing" on unspecified buildings, thus becoming the Reflective or Green Roofing Capital of the United States, or at least the Southeastern United States? Maybe the lights will really go out in Georgia, but Hotlanta will be keeping cooler than ever.

Am I the only American saddened by such bushwah? I hope not, even as I acknowledge that perhaps I am the only American outside of Silver City, New Mexico wondering why Silver City, New Mexico didn't ask for more than $60,000 for the "creation of Economic Developer position to service entire county."

I mean, seriously, why didn't the idiots there read their Bastiat, the great 19th century economist, and petition the government for I don't know, like a bazillion dollars for a "Window Breaker to break windows for the entire county"?

Don't you see how it works? All those broken windows will mean work for the glazier, who will then buy bread (which means work for the baker!), who will then buy solar panels (which means works for the solar panel guys!), who will then drive more on Fort Riley Blvd. (which will mean more acccidents on the street, thus increasing demand for traffic light coordinators, who will buy cars...).

Skim the mayors' begging petition, then read your Bastiat. Then go to sleep and pray that you wake up and it's December 2000 and the Supreme Court rules differently in that year's presidential contest.

And laugh for 23 seconds as the ultimate statement on phoney-baloney jobs is made in Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Shit. The thread is already pre-Lamarred.

  • Nigel Watt||

    Lord knows we wouldn't want those people who will get jobs out of this to do things that people actually want, you know, get a job that's paid for voluntarily.

  • Ska||

    How about Bloomberg just starts giving out fake-ass jobs for whoever at one of his financial firms, instead of pissing away tax money? Oh, right, because P&Ls actually matter in for profit companies. When the gov't spends, well, it's for the people or some shit.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    "bogosity"

    I'm stealing that. Great word!!!

  • Orange Line Special||

    Actually, some of the ideas that some mayors had - including some of those on the list above - back in June were quite "libertarian". Let's see Reason come out against that subsidy.

    P.S. What happened to Weigel?
    * He's having his hair re-shellaced.
    * He's being fitted for his own pleather jacket and ClipOnSideburns to be just like Nick.
    * He's finally realized that "libertarianism" is a scam.
    * He's going to work for the BHO administration (openly this time).

  • ||

    You seem a tad wound up, Nick. And your face is greasy. Real greasy. You been up all night?

  • Kyle Jordan||

    Once he hits 100 cups, all will be well.

  • The Owners Manual||

    Saddled with a Blazing NY Times




    "Gentlemen, our stock lost 70% of its value in seventeen weeks. We've got to do something to protect our phony-baloney jobs. Can I get a huzzah? "
    "Hussah!"
    "Huzzah."
    ...
    "I didn't get a huzzah from him."
    "Huzzah!!!! Don't hit me no more!"
    "Alright. Pay attention. Any suggestions, questions? Yeah, you..."
    "What's stock got to do with anything? Stock don't feed my mistress's kids."
    "It's the Family, Friedman. The class A extended parasi--- Family. They're getting antsy."
    "Well, let the government help. They're rescuing everyone else."
    "I'm not sure how long we can wait before it's too late to bail out, Maureen."
    "What? Bail out? Who are you ... Michael Douglas? Not again!"
    "No, Maureen. I mean we need a taxpayer bailout to keep the boat afloat long enough for us to bail out with our brogdingnagian bonuses."
    "I know, I know what to do! Let's mortgage the building, float a sinking debenture, collateralize the collating machines, subjunctivinate the subordinated tax-loss carry forward, and unwind the depreciated asset forelamalamadingdong."
    "Thank you for that authentic accounting gibberish, Krugman."
    "He's right, you know."
    "How's that Pinch?"
    "Well, we mortgage the building, then drive some route delivery trucks into Washington DC. We go in a' rompin' and a' stompin', bashin' and a' cashin'..."
    "...Vibin' and a' bribin'?"
    "That's it, Pinch. And then we come out grabbin' and a' stabbin'."
    "By George, I think we've got it."

  • ||

    You seem a tad wound up, Nick. And your face is greasy. Real greasy. You been up all night?

    Fancy cigar. Why don't you smoke it already? Puff, puff, go, go, go, go, go!

  • ||

    This isn't Yemeni! It's Sulawesi! And the cup's shaking! I don't want my coffee shaking!

  • Kolohe||

    a proposed "O'Malley Road Reconstruction" in Anchorage, Alaska, that will cost $30 million but provide 300 (count 'em!) jobs;

    If the road takes a year to build that's $100K per man-year of labor. That sounds about right for anywhere in the US, but especially for Alaska. And of course it's lower, because you have to pay for stuff and equipment.

  • ||

    As Dave Barry noted back in 1992, in a simpler time...

    The transportation bill had over $5 billion worth of special local projects and favors attached to it, lamprey-like, by various congresspersons. But this is good, because these projects will CREATE JOBS. See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs.

    That's why President George ``Samurai'' Bush flew all the way to Euless, Texas, a round trip of 2,600 miles, at taxpayers' expense, so he could be seen on TV signing the transportation bill at a highway construction site. ``Jobs, jobs, jobs,'' he said, in a quotation that will probably win the award for Best Articulated Reason For Signing A Big Fat Lardbucket Of A Transportation Bill, narrowly edging out ``Wooga, wooga, wooga.''

  • Lefiti||

    What do you libertardians have against working class people earning a living wage? I don't see the "free market" building any roads or bridges recently, do you?

  • DannyK||

    Dang, it's too bad the infrastructure in the U.S. is in such pristine shape! If only there were bridges falling down,or something. Nope, there is no improvement possible in any field, except maybe in finance, where the banks need a makeover.

    P.S. Someday you will have to answer to Bastiat's angry ghost for the use you've made of him in this post, Nick.

  • ||

    DannyK, you must be siding with Arnold Kling...

    When I see Obama's proposals for a big investment in infrastructure, I get this picture in my head of former mortgage brokers and bond salesmen on highway construction projects wearing hard hats and driving bulldozers. Actually, the employment benefit of infrastructure projects is more likely to go to the illegal immigrants who were laid off from housing construction and who otherwise would be headed back home.

  • ||

    Oh Lefiti, you really didn't even have to waste the energy typing that out. We all know what you would've said had you simply typed "I respond"

  • ||

    all the humor and pathos of the post does seem to depend upon it not being the case that the local jurisdictions have serious deferred maintenance problems or crumbling infrastructure. I find this...implausible.

  • Cool Cal||

    Nick,

    Are you inplying that if Gore "won" in 2000 the whole course of history would have changed, thus making the current predicament moot? I hope so, because I don't believe this kind of proposal is that far off from anything the Great Green Prophet would have concocted left to his own devices, Earth being in the balance and all.

    Also, isn't it sad that certain people considered generally intelligent (i.e. everyone on MSNBC/Air America) violently opposed Alaska's eggregious use of federal money on public projects, including the original "Bridge to Nowhere", yet enthusiastically support these vastly similar public works projects, largely because these projects are not supported by religious, gun-clingin' backwoodsy types?

  • Jordan||

    Dang, it's too bad the infrastructure in the U.S. is in such pristine shape! If only there were bridges falling down,or something. Nope, there is no improvement possible in any field, except maybe in finance, where the banks need a makeover.



    They have all of the infrastructure money that they need; they just flush it down the drain on bullshit social programs and corporate subsidies instead.

  • martyred_cars||

    Can I just tell you, as a resident of Anchorage, that O'Malley Road seems just fine to me. I don't drive it on a regular basis, but I've never seen any severe problems with it.

    Also, the Anchorage mayor asking for it? That would be Mark Begich. The guy we just swapped out Ted Stevens for. He's as big a self-serving crony as Stevens, just younger. He's why Stevens did as well as he did. It's great, just great. But at least if he's in the senate, he's out of our hair here in Anchorage.

  • Nick Gillespie||

    According to the Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, there is $400 billion in private capital that can be tapped for various sorts of infrastructure-related projects. Go here for more information.

    For a quick read on why all infrastructure projects are not created equally, read this commentary by Reason Foundation analysts Adrian Moore and Samuel Staley.

  • Lene Johansen||

    Wow Nick, the headline read like an Onion story, the sad part is that this is more than what the funny boys and gals at the Onion could come up with even in their most elusive moments!

    After listening to Al Gore speak about the great economic benefits from his 10-plan with Sam Kazman this summer, I tweeted that this is great voodoo economics. We just magically create marginal utility through subsidies! Amazing, I think the last time we tried that in the U.S., they called it the New Deal or something. We could call this the Old Deal, cause they did it before and we know that the medicine was worse than the disease!

  • ||

    I have to second every word martyred_cars had to say. O'Malley on the West side is brand-spankin' new and on the east side ain't no $30 million project. If I had to make a guess, it's not a 'ready-to-go' project so much as an 'already been done' one.

  • Left-Titti / Orange Line / Edw||

    Oh, you Libertardasians. We all know it's yin-yang, not ying yang!
    Damn cosmo-pseudo-paleotards!

    Notice me!
    Love me!

  • ||

    I'm sure that the value of many of these projects are overblown, but unless you're a full-blown anarchocapitalist even some of the projects Gillespie singled out for mockery here would seem legitimate (e.g., the storm sewers, installing solar panels on existing government buildings, etc.).

  • Jordan||

    I'm sure that the value of many of these projects are overblown, but unless you're a full-blown anarchocapitalist even some of the projects Gillespie singled out for mockery here would seem legitimate (e.g., the storm sewers, installing solar panels on existing government buildings, etc.).



    They aren't legitimate functions of the federal government, which is who these guys are seeking funding from.

  • Orange Line Special||

    Actually, the employment benefit of infrastructure projects is more likely to go to the illegal immigrants who were laid off from housing construction and who otherwise would be headed back home.

    Expect Reason to begin shilling for the New Deal^2 in 4..3..2..1..

  • ||

    OLS wrote, "Expect Reason to begin shilling for the New Deal^2 in 4..3..2..1.."

    You mean the NuNu deal?

  • Paul||

    We are truly doomed.

    What's the new "vision" for infrastructure in such modern, progressive cities such as Seattle?

    Hint: it's a fixed rail concept, largely abandoned in the early part of the 20th century.

  • ||

    The broken window fallacy is alive and well with the best know economist of our day, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman.

    From an opinion on September 14, 2001:

    "First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending."

  • ||

    "Broken Windows" theory doesn't really apply here -- there aren't any broken windows, or holes being dug just so they can be refilled.

    This is just government spending. We know that in normal times, government spending is more wasteful than people spending their own money. Would the wastefulness ratio be higher for the proposed infrastructure spending? Yes -- these would be the projects that got deferred because their cost-benefit ratios were worse than the state and local projects that got funded. And then we already know that state and local governments will spend money on projects that are being paid for by "free" federal dollars that they wouldn't fund when spending their 'own' money (their 'own' money, in this case, meaning, of course, other people's tax money but where the other people are -- unfortunately -- nearer by and paying closer attention).

    So more will be wasted even than in 'normal' pork spending, but we'll get at least *some* things of value out of it. But given that we know the government will feel that it absolutely must be seen as doing something--is this worse than the feasible alternatives?

  • Hucbald||

    I'm NOT the only person who uses the word, "bogosity." Excellent.

  • ||

    "but we'll get at least *some* things of value out of it."
    - - - -

    You're more optimistic than I am.

    We're about to hand big, overflowing bucketfuls of cash to politicians all over the country, because they all came on TV at the same time and said "we have a crisisical emergency melting down around our very derivative swaps! Quick, give us big, overflowing bucketfuls of cash! Hurry! They need to be spent! NOW!"

    And so we did. And, the cool thing about full-bore, damn-the-albedo-full-speed-ahead emergency governmental spending is, you can spill a small percentage of it into your sock, or your pocket, or your wife's cousin's purse, or your son's business . . . and even a small chunk of one hellaciously elephantine grazing of dollars-from-suckers can be a really fun chunk!

    What we've just done - in parking this $700T pile in Paulson's garage - we just made him the new cool kid, and now everyone wants to play with him because if you hang around him for a bit, he gives you these incredible presents.

    So we just bought several hundred billion dollars worth of presents for all of those politicians - light rail, green roofs for guv buildings, bike trails, windmills, everything they need to guarantee their own re-election next time - along with maybe three hundred billion dollars worth of . . . I dunno, what did those S&L guys buy when THEY had all the extra money?

  • ||

    "I don't see the "free market" building any roads or bridges recently, do you?"

    Um, in your world, do those tax dollars used to build roads and bridges come from elves or simply appear out of thin air?

    In my world, private economic activity builds every #$@#% thing government allegedly builds. But private economic activity must first pay the ever-present civil servant "skim" and union contractor "vig". After all the fleshy-cheeked government folks have gotten their piece, and the government claims credit for the bridge, sun rising etc, an overpriced, poorly maintained public road exists...where a cheaper, better maintained toll road could possibly have been profitably built.

  • ||

    For a quick read on why all infrastructure projects are not created equally...

    They're NOT? You mean you actually have to know something other than the name and dollar value of a project to know if it's a good use of money?

    Then wtf was the point of this post?

    "Golly, a seven figure amount and a place I've never been to? Broken windows, broken windows!"

  • ||

    Good grief, why do some politicians think we need to bring back the WPA and CCC and so on? Not only that, those government programs weren't very effective at jump-starting the economy the first time around so why do they think we should try them again?

  • ||

    No, no, seriously, our roads and bridges are in such awesome shape, and energy efficiency improvements so economically irrational, that the smart move is just to liken any spending on such project to digging a hole a filling it in.

    There's just no way it would be a smart investment to catch up on deferred maintenance of bridges. And seriously, since when has upgrading a transportation system ever laid the groundwork for long-term economic growth?

  • ||

    "There's just no way it would be a smart investment to catch up on deferred maintenance of bridges."

    Identify the project, the cost, and the ROI justification, and we should discuss the matter using that data. But if the Build NOW! choir's proposal is to let congress allocate massive amounts of capital to "infrastructure" projects to be determined at a later date, you will not get my support. Instead, you will get my active opposition.

    I believe that the current generation of leaders is unable to operate in a trustworthy, competent manner when allocating funds to public goods. Accordingly, I anticipate that too much of the money here would be wasted in scandalously inefficient projects designed to make work for favored constituencies. Therefore, I cannot support the proposal except after seeing the vague notion of "build!" broken down into project, cost and expected ROI.

    Of course, that would likely result in much less money going to the "right" places.

  • ||

    Spartee,

    It's not as if the infrastructure backlog is any great mystery. Have you ever heard of a TIP?

    Any decision-making process is going to introduce some politicized inefficiency into the process, but the fact that the projects are not going to be specified in the legislation, like earmarks, but are going to be decided upon by state DOTs is a good thing.

  • ||

    Look at Gillespie's reasoning here:

    "$300,000 to create thirty jobs? That's inefficience!"

    As if the only economic impact, or even the primary economic impact, of building a road is the wages of the construction crew, and as if the money spent on materials and equipment doesn't pay for any jobs.

  • ||

    joe, I don't like your tone, but I think I agree a bit. It is a forgone conclusion that our current government is going to spend itself into psuedo-oblivion. I've accepted that. I would rather them be wasteful building physical stuff, infrastructure stuff, stuff that gets people like me a job, than pretty much anything else.

    The thing about infrastructure is that it becomes more expensive as time goes on. A highway today costs much more tomorrow. True, their is a lot of waste and budget-blowing in construction, but good planning can cut that.

    We are going to piss through money - fact. We piss it away building something useful. Infrastructure projects, when planned tightly and carefully, are generally a "good" investment because they are usually necessary and likely to become more expensive in the future.

    Yeah I know I just repeated myself, suck it down.

  • ||

    OK, fine, -1 for tone.

  • ||

    We've already got plenty of people who could be working for local governments. Everyone getting a check (unemployment, welfare, disability, etc) should be made to work at least 24 hours a week for their local government. They could answer phones, cut grass, paint, any number of things. Then they areearning their check, not having them given to them.

  • ||

    Infrastructure projects, when planned tightly and carefully,

    Uh huh.

    The only infrastructure the feds should be paying for is the interstate highway system. All these local projects are just so much pork, and to the extent they are needed should be funded locally.

    Sure, there's lots of deferred maintenance out there, no question. Mostly because Our Masters would rather spend roads-n-bridges money on new stuff they can can name after themselves than on repairs.

  • ||

    There are no interstate rail systems?

    Extend the Lowell line to Nashua!

  • ||

    Better spent there than to make Dick Cheney richer by spending it on Halliburton and "rebuilding" Iraq.

  • MRM||

    Your reference to the parable of the broken window is fallacious. It would only be valid if the government decided to destroy existing public works and rebuild them.

    The boy who breaks the shopkeeper's window is destroying existing property.

    The public works push by the incoming administration is focused on improving needed infrastructure that will actually benefit people and leave the country in a better position when they are done - it isn't simply labor for labor's sake. Unless, of course, you want to wait for what happened in Minneapolis last year to happen all across the country before you think checking all the bridges is a good idea.

    You would have to adjust the parable in order to make it apply to the current situation. If the boy had instead begged the shopkeeper to build a bridge on his property that the public could use so that they could get out of town easier, and the public promised to pay the shopkeep back if they could, then the parable would be accurate. Construction of the bridge would employ dozens of people, and if there was an economic benefit to having the bridge, (EVEN IF THE VALUE IS LESS THAN THE COST OF THE BRIDGE), then there was net benefit. For example, if the bridge made it so that people passing through the area now found it easier to go through the town instead of around it, and the increased traffic lead to the opening of roadside diners that previously didn't have enough customers, generating more wealth for the community -- the old parable starts sounding better.

    I suggest that the author READ HIS BASTIAT (as he so gleefully repeated in his article), and perhaps even try to understand nuance in theory.

  • MRM||

    In deference to RC Dean's comment - you're correct that there is a great deal of waste in pork spending. Pork spending is often not valuable infrastructure, and shouldn't be included in the spending.

    I disagree, however, with the notion that the interstate highway system is the only federal project worth funding. Is the Hoover Dam a worthless project?

    Local projects that primarily benefit the residents of nearby areas can be worthwhile expenditures. They certainly aren't always, though (one could say they aren't often), and that is the primary challenge for the administration. Worthwhile projects can be found or created that would allow us to, in a sense, pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

    Incidentally, my apologies for the ALL CAPS pieces of my previous post. I wanted to emphasize the two small sections, and I didn't realize that you could do italics here (I didn't read all of the posts).

  • ||

    Your reference to the parable of the broken window is fallacious. It would only be valid if the government decided to destroy existing public works and rebuild them.

    Just curious... What do you think happens when the government decides to rebuild a bridge or repave a road?

    If that construction is done before the actual infrastructure is truly depreciated, then someone is destroying it to replace it -- just as the window in the parable.

  • ||

    Construction of the bridge would employ dozens of people, and if there was an economic benefit to having the bridge, (EVEN IF THE VALUE IS LESS THAN THE COST OF THE BRIDGE), then there was net benefit.

    No. If the value of the bridge to society is less than the cost of the bridge to society, it is a net loss to society, regardless of how many people are employed.

    For example, if the bridge made it so that people passing through the area now found it easier to go through the town instead of around it, and the increased traffic lead to the opening of roadside diners that previously didn't have enough customers, generating more wealth for the community -- the old parable starts sounding better.

    And if the bridge was the key piece of a bypass that moved the traffic out of town so travelers passed by and ate at the next town? These factors are utterly irrelevant to the parable.

    I suggest that the author READ HIS BASTIAT (as he so gleefully repeated in his article), and perhaps even try to understand nuance in theory.

    You mean like these passages?...

    When a railroad or a bridge are of real utility, it is sufficient to mention this utility. But if it does not exist, what do they do? Recourse is had to this mystification: "We must find work for the workmen."

    As a permanent, general, systematic measure, it is nothing else than a ruinous mystification, an impossibility, which shows a little excited labour which is seen, and bides a great deal of prevented labour which is not seen.

  • Matthew||

    Is your job up for grabs, or perhaps the editor who allowed this to be posted without the barest HINT of proofreading?

    "boostrap the economy out its funk"

    Wouldn't that be "bootstrap the economy out of its funk?"

    I understand that blogging is generally done in conversational tones, but come on, show enough pride in your work to throw your scathing post through a spell check.

  • bill||

    Dear god, the writer of this article is a numbskull.

  • bill||

    "Just curious... What do you think happens when the government decides to rebuild a bridge or repave a road?

    If that construction is done before the actual infrastructure is truly depreciated, then someone is destroying it to replace it -- just as the window in the parable."

    --

    There is a huge amount of US infrastructure that needs to be repaired or replaced. The broken window only works if you're tearing down infrastructuure before it's necessary. Shit, California alone has enough work to keep everyone busy for the next 100 years.

  • ||

    There is a huge amount of US infrastructure that needs to be repaired or replaced.

    That may be true. Whether or not it is, the fact that such construction employs people is not a valid argument to do it. That is the point of the numbskull's post.

  • ||

    I see where in some cities in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA they now force those who build houses to follow the practice of FUNG SHEIGH looks like their going to the wacky side becuase of their adiction to wacky weed

  • ||

    Perhaps we had too much infrastructure in the first place if it costs this much to maintain it. And keep in mind that every new toilet is going to need a job for someone to keep it clean. The proposed balloon in infrastructure is going to cost more money for maintenance in the short/medium run and especially when it's time to make repairs on what we have now plus what we received from the balloon. Let's keep the focus on truly needed repair, elimination unneeded items, and upgrade only when it generates more than it costs.

  • ||

    I have "worked" for the government for over 30 years, in a department that is probably one of the more "productive". And I have watched over the years as the liberals have stocked the place with minorities and females - who have an amazing ability to accomplish nothing and make it sound like they are The Most Important People in the Cosmos. I used to think that if Americans had any idea how they were getting ripped off by the government they would revolt, but now I am resigned to the fact that American taxpayers are stupid sheep. Do you realize that about half of Americans pay not taxes, that no one who works for the government actually pays any taxes, they just get a smaller check, that the government produces nothing of value, and you could get rid of the entire government and it would have almost no effect - except a good effect, because it would remove the strangling tourniquet around the neck of productive Americans and unleash a wave of prosperity and productivity. The only way this is ever going to change is for the whole machine to crash - so I am doing my part, by doing absolutely nothing. And you know what - no one notices, and I get great job reviews too!

  • ||

    PS - This infrastructure boondoggle is nothing but a make-work program for enviro-nazis and lawyers. None of these dream projects will ever see the light of day because they will be tied up in litigation and environmental obstructionism. The liberal fascists are not about to let anything happen that is going to require fossil-fuel burning equipment to run their engines. Think of the Glomal Warbling that will result!!!! Get used to sitting on your ass and watching Doprah Dimfrey get fatter by the minute.

  • ||

    Don't blame me, I voted for the "Cuda.

    Does anyone else notice this is deja-vue all over again? This is a repeat of the rapist felon Bill Clinton junta.

    Is it too soon for me to say I told you so?...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement