General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's big infrastructure plan? It's a trap. (Obama/Clinton adviser Ronald Klain in WaPo)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-big-infrastructure-plan-its-a-trap/2016/11/18/5b1d109c-adae-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.htmlFirst, Trumps plan is not really an infrastructure plan. Its a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump plan doesnt directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clintons 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trumps plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. Theres no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects.
Moreover, as others have noted, desperately needed infrastructure projects that are not attractive to private investors municipal water-system overhauls, repairs of existing roads, replacement of bridges that do not charge tolls get no help from Trumps plan. And contractors? Well, they get a 10 percent pretax profit margin, according to the plan. Combined with Trumps sweeping business tax break, this would represent a stunning $85 billion after-tax profit for contractors underwritten by the taxpayers.
Second, as a result of the above, Trumps plan isnt really a jobs plan, either. Because the plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because theres no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring. Investors may simply shift capital from unsubsidized projects to subsidized ones and pocket the tax breaks on projects they would have funded anyway. Contractors have no obligation to hire new workers, or expand workers hours, to collect their $85 billion. To their credit, the plans authors dont call it a jobs plan; ironically, it is Democrats looking to align with Trump who have given it that name. They should not fool themselves.
-snip-
This needs to go viral.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)It sounds like a clever trick to give tax breaks, but it's not clear to me exactly how this works.
northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)rather than what it SEEMS to accomplish
phallon
(260 posts)the 1% and all we have is, what?
stevebreeze
(1,877 posts)phallon
(260 posts)these Republicans are gonna shake us down every way they can because they don't pay taxes.
Stuart G
(38,436 posts)I couldn't help myself...please excuse this one..please... a moment of humor during a difficult time..
"IT'S A TRAP"...ADMIRAL ACKBAR.....FROM STAR WARS...just 2 seconds...
elleng
(130,974 posts)to private investors municipal water-system overhauls, repairs of existing roads, replacement of bridges that do not charge tolls get no help from Trumps plan.'
Stuart G
(38,436 posts)He is totally dedicated to private investors. thanks posting the above.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Democrats in Congress (and whoever is left, if any, of sane Republicans) need to adopt the working hypothesis that anything Trump proposes is a con, and act accordingly.
mopinko
(70,127 posts)i am sure obama has a list of "shovel ready" project that the next admin could take on. if the dems cant get that list tacked on to this bill, they need to hang their heads in shame.
this is the test. will they compromise? do they really want 2 years at least of everything getting the kind of one sided votes that made people want to break all the china? or will they stiffen up, and make them pay the price for their smiling faces at the "jobs bill" signing ceremony?
this sets the stage.
the whole world is watching.
TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)Their bills are always loaded with riders and amendments to end abortion rights, voting rights etc.
So voting against every fucking thing they do in the House should be easy and filibustering everything in the Senate is justifiable.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)"I'm a huge supporter of infrastructure spending - both for the multiple economic benefits of large-scale infrastructure projects and the more mundane reason that the things you build are good to have: roads, modern rail systems, airports, bridges that don't collapse, modern energy infrastructure. The list is almost endless. This makes a lot of people excited about Donald Trump's push for infrastructure spending. But put on the brakes and don't get excited. As I mentioned a few days ago, Trump isn't proposing major spending on infrastructure projects. He's proposing 'public private partnerships', which as we explained here are in most cases efficient ways to sell off public goods to private corporations.
But it's actually even worse than that.
There are two really good short articles out today which begin to explain what's happening. There won't be any infrastructure spending. There will be a mix of tax giveaways and and corporate welfare to incentivize private sector infrastructure spending. And there is good reason to think that most of those giveaways will simply be pocketed for spending that was already happening. In other words, big giveaways, more budget busting without even getting the benefit of new stuff or spurring demand.
Start with Ron Klain's article here in The Washington Post and Paul Krugman's in The New York Times here. This is a mix of privatization and tax giveaways which in all likelihood will not even lead to building much of any new stuff."
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Color me shocked.