Obama To Propose Major Infrastructure Overhaul

[Sionnach Glic]

WASHINGTON - Vowing to find new ways to stimulate the sputtering economy, President Barack Obama will call for long-term investments in the nation's roads, railways and airports that would cost at least $50 billion, administration officials said.

The infrastructure investments are one part of a package of targeted proposals the White House is expected to announce in hopes of jump-starting the economy ahead of the November election.

Obama will outline the infrastructure proposal Monday at a Labor Day event in Milwaukee.

While the proposal calls for investments over six years, officials said spending would be front-loaded with an initial $50 billion to help create jobs in the near future. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the proposals ahead of the president's announcement.

The goals of the infrastructure plan include: rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads; constructing and maintaining 4,000 miles of railways, enough to go coast-to-coast; and rehabilitating or reconstructing 150 miles of airport runways, while also installing a new air navigation system designed to reduce travel times and delays.

Oil firms could foot bill
Obama will also call for the creation of a permanent infrastructure bank that would focus on funding national and regional infrastructure projects.

Officials wouldn't say what the total cost of the infrastructure investments would be, but did say the initial $50 billion represents a significant percentage. Officials said the White House would consider closing a number of special tax breaks for oil and gas companies to pay for the proposal.

Obama made infrastructure investments a central part of the $814 billion stimulus Congress passed last year, but with that spending winding down, the economy's growth has slowed.

Officials said this infrastructure package differs from the stimulus because it's aimed at long-term growth, while still focusing on creating jobs in the short-term.

With the unemployment rate ticking up to 9.6 percent, and polls showing the midterm elections could be dismal for Democrats, the president has promised to unveil a series of new measures on the economy.

In addition to Monday's announcement in Milwaukee, Obama will travel to Cleveland Wednesday to pitch a $100 billion proposal to increase and make permanent research and development tax credits for businesses, a White House official said.

While the idea is popular in Congress, coming up with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts has been a stumbling block.

Other stimulus measures
Similar to his proposal to pay for the infrastructure investments, Obama will ask lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations to pay for the plan.

Other stimulus measures the administration is considering include extending a law passed in March that exempts companies that hire unemployed workers from paying Social Security taxes on those workers through December.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has proposed extending the exemption an additional six months.

Obama is also continuing to prod the Senate to pass the small business bill that calls for about $12 billion in tax breaks and a $30 billion fund to help unfreeze lending.

Republicans have likened the bill to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry.

And the president wants to make permanent the portion of George W. Bush's tax cuts affecting the middle class.

Wary of the public's concern over rising deficits, the administration insists a second stimulus plan, similar to last year's $814 billion bill, is not in the works.

Not a bad idea. It'll put a lot of people to work, which will help stimulate the economy again. And I'm sure in a country as big as the US there are plenty of roads in need of a serious rebuilding.

[Mikey]

Not a bad idea at all, but he's posturing on a decades-old issue. The national transportation infrastructure has been showing signs, both minute and overt, for decades of needing wholesale repair as well as change in the way it is monitored. Unfortunately, such things haven't been as hot a news item as the sheer moment of the political machine and haven't got the attention in Washington which they deserve. So... needs to get done, can be a huge benefit if done properly; BUT, I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama is no FDR.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

I have a sneaking suspicion you're right, Mikey.

[Tyyr]

If you want to get the economy going again you don't create low paying road work jobs and you certainly don't do it by creating low paying road work jobs and paying for it by raising energy prices across the board. Just like the other stimulus packages this sounds nice but the actual effect is likely to be nearly nothing.

[Mikey]

If you want to get the economy going again you don't create low paying road work jobs and you certainly don't do it by creating low paying road work jobs and paying for it by raising energy prices across the board. Just like the other stimulus packages this sounds nice but the actual effect is likely to be nearly nothing.

Well, not twice in a century, anyway. As I said, the man who did just that isn't around anymore; plus, we don't have the Japanese coming to us as a captive oil market (little did we know...) and we can't really count on a true World War around the bend to stimulate industry just as those artificial jobs are starting to wear thin.

[SolkaTruesilver]

If you want to get the economy going again you don't create low paying road work jobs and you certainly don't do it by creating low paying road work jobs and paying for it by raising energy prices across the board. Just like the other stimulus packages this sounds nice but the actual effect is likely to be nearly nothing.

Actually, the U.S.'s development of the interstate highway system that occured in the 30's have been responsible for the incredible economical growth of the 50's and 60's. It's not something that will actually help your economy that much during the crisis, but it's a good investment for future generation and the long-term view of your country.

Rehauling everything will makes things easier on successive administrations, and help the country's prosperity on the long run.

[Tyyr]

1) The interstate highway system was built in the 50's due to Eisenhower.
2) The New Deal did make some infrastructure improvements but there is a significant number of economists and historians who think the New Deal extended the Great Depression.
3) World War Fucking Two is the biggest single reason for the boom of the 50's and 60's.
4) This isn't going to overhaul everything, or even very much.

Money spent on infrastructure maintenance and improvement is never wasted but pretending it's going to do anything for the economy is just wrong.

[USSEnterprise]

50 billion is nothing really. It would take hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars to really do anything about the declining health of all the roads and bridges etc. They've been ignored to long...

[SolkaTruesilver]

1) The interstate highway system was built in the 50's due to Eisenhower.
2) The New Deal did make some infrastructure improvements but there is a significant number of economists and historians who think the New Deal extended the Great Depression.
3) World War f***ing Two is the biggest single reason for the boom of the 50's and 60's.
4) This isn't going to overhaul everything, or even very much.

Money spent on infrastructure maintenance and improvement is never wasted but pretending it's going to do anything for the economy is just wrong.

Darn it, I got my facts wrong. Oh well, nevermind that then. Thank you for fixing that straight

[Mikey]

2) The New Deal did make some infrastructure improvements but there is a significant number of economists and historians who think the New Deal extended the Great Depression.

There are a number of historical economists who think that the New Deal flattened out the recovery curve from the Great Depression, which is a different thing altogether. There are those, as well, who think as you have stated... but the models they present are based mostly on supposition and generally are pretty iffy as to whether things would actually fall as they predict. Be that as it may - like I said, we can't right now count on a World War to give industry a shot of juice in the ass; nor can a TVA-type construct offer the types of employment which would have the same impact in modern America.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Be that as it may - like I said, we can't right now count on a World War to give industry a shot of juice in the ass; nor can a TVA-type construct offer the types of employment which would have the same impact in modern America.

We can't count in a war at all anymore. Total War as seen in the past World Wars is a thing of the past. Modern military are much much smaller, but much much more powerful for every single soldier. So you need a much smaller industrial base to support it, which means you can't have your entire economy running for the war effort anymore, since you'd end up with 10 tanks for every soldier you field.

[Tyyr]

Actually it's more of a time issue. Modern war is so much more destructive that you simply could not build and ship equipment fast enough to replace losses in a large scale high tech modern war. Your entire industrial base would have to be on a war footing and already cranking as hard as it could before the war even started in order to have a prayer. A large scale modern war will likely see an initial period of massive destruction with lots of movement followed by a prolonged low level conflict where both sides lack the resources to sustain any major push. In other words you'll have to win fast or not at all.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Actually it's more of a time issue. Modern war is so much more destructive that you simply could not build and ship equipment fast enough to replace losses in a large scale high tech modern war. Your entire industrial base would have to be on a war footing and already cranking as hard as it could before the war even started in order to have a prayer. A large scale modern war will likely see an initial period of massive destruction with lots of movement followed by a prolonged low level conflict where both sides lack the resources to sustain any major push. In other words you'll have to win fast or not at all.

Well, having an ennemy that you can never state officially to be defeated has it's advantages, no?

And you can also push for your military to develop it's best Intelligence toys, the best fighter/bomber planes and Predators. Since the war never actually ends, you never need to cut funding.

[BigJKU316]

Actually it's more of a time issue. Modern war is so much more destructive that you simply could not build and ship equipment fast enough to replace losses in a large scale high tech modern war. Your entire industrial base would have to be on a war footing and already cranking as hard as it could before the war even started in order to have a prayer. A large scale modern war will likely see an initial period of massive destruction with lots of movement followed by a prolonged low level conflict where both sides lack the resources to sustain any major push. In other words you'll have to win fast or not at all.

Well, having an ennemy that you can never state officially to be defeated has it's advantages, no?

And you can also push for your military to develop it's best Intelligence toys, the best fighter/bomber planes and Predators. Since the war never actually ends, you never need to cut funding.

Actually the real problem is that a modern economy is a very fragile thing in the face of modern weapons. The problem in WWII was not so much the theory behind the strategic bombers it was their inability to hit their targets. That is much less of a problem now. It would be nearly nothing for the US to plan a strike that say hit the vast majority of power plants in China and to reliably hit most of those targets.

In WWII it took a full bomber raid to hit one target, you could at best really hit 2 or 3 a day, and not all that reliably. Even if I hit it I might not crush the machinery, just knock it out of service. Now I can drop a 2,000 pound pentrating JDAM right down the stack of your power plant and blast the whole furnace apart for all time. Heck, a flight of B-2's can hit dozens of such targets in one sortie.

If its an all out war the pressure points can and already have been reliably spotted from space based assets well in advance. It will be over very quickly if we go down that path.

[Tyyr]

Now I can drop a 2,000 pound pentrating JDAM right down the stack of your power plant and blast the whole furnace apart for all time.

That's not really the way they're put together anymore but that's not the point.