The term, “infrastructure” is broadly used across the political spectrum, and, with it, comes a myriad of definitions, not all of which readily come to mind when the word is used. Generally, infrastructure refers to all systems within the nation that are crucial to its continued functionality.
Typically, one might be inclined to think of the costly structures owned and maintained by the federal government, such as highways and bridges. In actuality, this is only a small portion of what is now considered to be “infrastructure. Infrastructure is commonly split between two separate categories; “soft infrastructure” and “hard infrastructure.” Hard infrastructure refers to expansive physical structures integral to the operation of the country, much like the organs facilitate a body’s function. On a federal level, this can be further divided into separate categories; transportation, energy, water management, communications, waste management, and environmental infrastructure. Soft infrastructure is far more obscure and pertains to institutions that maintain urban functions, including; governance, economic, and social infrastructure. Below is a more detailed look into each category:
Hard Infrastructure
– Transportation
• Includes roads, rails, airways, waterways, ports, bridges, mass transit
– Energy
• Transmission of electricity, pipelines for oil and gas, renewable sources
– Water Management
• Levees, dams, drinking water
– Communications and Intelligence
• Schools, access to internet and broadband connections, research
– Waste Management
• Solid and hazardous, waste, wastewater
Hard infrastructure is generally more pertinent at the federal level, and will be the main focus of Party Nova. Party Nova will work to rectify this serious issue. Nova will dramatically increase funding to infrastructure — which currently sits at around $100 billion per year — to create modern, resilient, reliable, environmentally-friendly structures, suitable for the 21st century. Making significant new investments in roads and bridges, public transit, drinking and wastewater systems, broadband, schools will create “millions of good-paying middle-class jobs, boost economic growth and strengthen long-term competitiveness,” adding an estimated 2.5 million jobs by 2025.
II. Background: Current Infrastructure Policy
Infrastructure has always been a current and pressing issue, though, the amount of attention that it has received has not always been a political constant. Throughout the 1980s, politicians focused on the idea that government and the public sector should bear the burden of infrastructure, raising the much needed funding primarily from taxation. In the 1990s, however, public opinion, and the actions of elected political officials betrayed the sharp shift towards the idea that, rather than impose a tax burden upon the American people, the government should reduce its focus on infrastructure, and allow privately owned companies to invade the market, thus forcing only the users of public goods to have to pay, and reducing tax rates for the public.
Unfortunately, the hope that private businesses would be able to provide greater coverage for the services once looked after by the public sector, proved merely to be a pipe dream and a failure. Taxpayers were unhappy — even though they got a tremendous tax break — because of the fact that they had to pay higher prices out of pocket as users than as taxpayers, due to the fact that privatized infrastructure inevitably turned into a virtual monopoly, with privatized companies in control of pricing and relatively free to do as they pleased.
The current political debate over infrastructure primarily revolves around federal spending. This mainly involves argument over the current state of repair — or disrepair, as the case may be — of hard infrastructure: how much spending is necessary, and where. Generally, there is bi-partisan agreement upon the importance of infrastructure as a vehicle instrumental to revitalizing the economy and propelling America forward as a competitive force in the developed world. However, the Democratic Party has pushed for drastically increased federal spending while the GOP has pushed back, advocating for increased involvement of the private sector, citing fears over a growing deficit. However, this has been contradicted somewhat, by the actions of President-Elect Donald J. Trump, who vocally advocated for a “trillion dollar infrastructure plan,” something more in line with the goals of the Democratic Party, according to House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who also noted that infrastructure was one of the few things that the two parties could work together on. Indeed, one of the largest bi-partisan successes of 2015 under President Barack Obama was a $305 billion stimulus package to be spent on transportation.
Unfortunately, the massive spending package was passed only after an even larger one in the neighborhood of $400 billion was blocked by Congress earlier in the year. While the much needed legislation is a welcome sign of progress, it may prove to be insufficient. As of 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a need for an approximately $3.6 trillion increase in infrastructure by the year 2020 while the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities asserts that the US reached a 30-year low in infrastructure spending for the year 2016.
Of the estimated $416 billion dollars spent on transport and water management infrastructure in 2014, only about $96 billion came from federal sources — the rest originating from the public and private sectors. It is estimated that if the projected infrastructure gaps are not addressed, a total of 3 million jobs could be lost in the year 2025 alone, and up to 6 million in just the year of 2040, as well as a total loss of $18 trillion between 2016 and 2040, an overall devastating blow to a still fragile economy. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office reports that spending has been increasing, though, not at a rate which could feasibly allow the United States catch up with other developed countries in terms of infrastructure spending. It is, however, a step towards once again joining the ranks of nations with the best infrastructure.
This is not to say that American infrastructure is in shambles and literally crumbling all around. No, but much of the US infrastructure is rapidly aging, and the amount of infrastructure at risk due to that increased age is rapidly rising. Structures and works that were once the heart and pride of the US are now disregarded, as a significantly smaller portion of the GDP is spent on it each year. It is far more economical to cover costs before it falls into such disrepair that it requires immediate replacement. Also, many of the more dated structures may not be nearly as efficient as possible, and replacing them could offset great losses in the long-run.
III. Policy Options
With regards to spending, Party Nova’s options are fairly limited; it may choose to cut federal spending, with the hope that the reduced funds will be picked up by private companies, maintain its current spending, while adjusting for inflation rises, or increase spending to far greater levels. Superficially, this may look like a simple decision, however, each option comes with a permutation of choices that also must be closely regarded, and quickly, the process becomes far more convoluted and difficult.
Obviously, the federal government would have to operate within the limits of hard infrastructure. Reducing spending could mean slashing funding to all infrastructure across the board, or selectively de-funding programs and targeting specific, perhaps less-essential programs. The same goes for bolstering spending — select programs may receive more money, or all aspects of infrastructure may be boosted. The Party may even choose to elevate some programs, while demoting others, or maintaining current levels of support. And even then, increasing funding could take the form of subsidizing private companies as opposed to directly paying for the costs of a good or service.
Realistically, the party would take an in-depth look into each category, evaluate the benefits of pursuing that program, weighing it against the cost of the program, all other programs, and attempt to create a synergistic balance between all in order to promote growth and prosperity, while maintaining the budget and the deficit.
IV. Policy Objective: How Infrastructure Will Help Achieve Nova’s Goals
Party Nova’s vision extends far beyond the immediate reaches of the present and instead reaches into the future, seeking to create a more sustainable path for the United States to pursue. A myriad of problems plagues the country today, and a reinvigorated focus upon infrastructure may be the key to resolving a number of those issues.
First and foremost is an economic incentive. An ever increasing issue is the growing disparity between rich and poor. Income inequality has become so disproportionate, that the wealthiest percent of American citizens owns over ninety percent of all of the money within the country, causing the lower class to expand significantly, and the once late and vibrant middle class, the backbone of society, to rapidly dwindle almost to the point of nonexistence. Increasing funding naturally calls for a need for construction and labor, inherently creating a myriad of secure jobs for at least a decade, simultaneously helping to support the laboring middle class, creating millions jobs, and bridging the wealth gap. This redresses the long-standing grievance about the loss of jobs, specifically in the Rust Belt, as the US ceased being the industrial and manufacturing superpower it once was thanks to the advent of non-human capital and the relative ease of outsourcing.
Additionally, once in place, infrastructure naturally bolsters the economic well-being of a nation, encouraging private and even international firms to invest and become more efficient. Indeed, society as a whole would become more productive, though, it may be difficult to assert how exactly changes would affect it. Additionally, newer systems require less money to operate and maintain, while also producing output at a greater rate than outdated technology.
Modernized infrastructure is a key aspect of remaining relevant in terms of development. The US notoriously lags behind in education and research spending, sometimes trailing behind nations that aren’t fully developed or industrialized. Science and research should clearly be placed ahead of ideology in terms of funding and policymaking, especially if the latter is irrelevant without the groundwork laid by the former. The US can hardly claim to be the leader of the free and developed world if it is unable to even adequately provide for itself in terms of progress. With improved investments in communications and intelligence, widespread access to broadband internet, and a focus upon improvement, ranging from nanotechnologies, to biomedical research, America could not only reclaim its former glory, but also improve global conditions for all in a neon-militaristic fashion.
Ultimately, this pragmatic approach towards cost-effective efficiency and a hunger for progress would also lead to a more environmentally sustainable, as well as prosperous society that stays relatively healthy and happy with a high standard of living.
V. Analysis
This lengthy breakdown will observe the outcome of both increasing and decreasing funding for each of the five broad categorizations of hard infrastructure. Unless it is otherwise stated, it should be assumed that by neither increasing or decreasing funding, growth will continue to occur, though, as previously stated, at a less than optimal rate. It will additionally provide examples of specific areas to alter funding, as well as possible and viable ways to create new projects.
Transportation:
Decreasing transportation funding has very few benefits. In fact, aside from the marginal tax break and decreased amount of the budget spent, there is very little incentive for the government to defund transportation.
On the other hand, increasing funding could be vastly important to further growth. Not only is it in the interest of national defense to always keep well-maintained highways, bridges and waterways should the need for military action ever arise, most Americans use them on a daily basis. Dilapidated or even slightly outdated roadways, bridges, and waterways could cause cause catastrophic accidents at worst, but regularly prolong work, reduce efficiency, and ultimately cut into household incomes and wages, by causing work hours to expand while pay does not. The same is true of public transport — even more, so in fact, as mass transit is more common in larger cities or used by those who either cannot afford private vehicles or for those whom do not need one. In either case, a faster, safer, and more efficient means of transport is key to boosting public health and productivity. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that backlogged or delayed infrastructure improvements cost the US approximately $24 billion in 2012 alone, which should be surprising, since civil air travel accounts for a massive 5 percent of the US GDP. Obviously, improvements in airports and navigation controls are something to be considered. As the progenitor of the Trans-Continental Railroad, America has let its railways to sadly fall into disrepair. They have been experiencing an incredible resurgence in terms of technology, cost-effectiveness, and energy efficiency. In 2012, Amtrak witnessed its most lucrative year in terms of number of passengers. A possible, though extremely costly alternative rails — the mag lev could achieve extreme speeds of upwards of 300 mph up to 700 mph, revolutionizing land travel. In fact, one has been built in Japan, though its approximate 100 mile length cost nearly $50 billion to construct. However, acting as both passenger and freight, as well as all of the aforementioned internal improvements, private citizens, the military, and most of all, private firms would heartily prosper as travel became faster, more efficient, and goods and services could be transported over larger distances in far shorter times at far lower costs. Likewise, investing in seaports would be highly beneficial to imports and exports, facilitating the movement of goods, boosting efficiency, and ultimately, profits, but this time, in terms of international trade. Of course, massive amounts of money would be required to facilitate all of the proposed improvements, which would take massive amounts of time and labor to construct that would probably be unreasonable to expect that the federal government fund all of them at once. Provided that no further research and development was performed, and estimated $1.7 trillion alone would have to go into upkeep and renewal of transport systems to modernize it by 2020, while only a comparatively paltry $800 billion would be needed to maintain current systems in the same time. Or roughly $225 billion per year and $100 billion per year, respectively.
It may be highly advisable to increase double transportation spending to approximately $225 billion as it can have massively beneficial commercial, civil, international and military implications. If there are extra funds while balancing the budget, funneling extra funds towards the research and development of things such as a mag-lev rail or solar roadways could prove to be ground- breaking technological breakthroughs that bolster the economy and help the environment, though that may not necessarily be a top priority.
Public Facilities:
As a legacy left behind by President Theodore Roosevelt, the National Park System was created with the intention to protect America’s most beautiful and abundant natural resources for the world and progeny to see. Not only are they a great source of national pride, but they draw in vast amounts of revenue as well. A profit of nearly $16 billion was made in 2012, as well as nearly 300,000 jobs. Reducing funding doesn’t seem to be practical, and privatization of the land would mean handing over national treasures to private companies, which is untenable. Of course environmental implications of conservation efforts are mostly beneficial, however, increasing spending dramatically also does not appear to be largely beneficial to the economy, which some may consider to take more precedent over the laudable effort of preserving natural wonders for humanity and the rest of the world. Again, it is difficult to estimate how changes in funding towards public works would affect a developed nation, as there is little e data from other countries regarding this aspect.
Unless there is an unnecessary budget surplus, it may be advisable to maintain the annual $3 billion allotted to the National Park Service, as it remains a highly profitable sector.
Energy:
In an ever modernizing world where energy is becoming an increasingly precious commodity, it seems non-sensical to reduce funding towards energy. Energy need are slated to face an increase upwards of 10% in the coming years, and distribution pipelines and transmission lines are in desperate need of repair and replacement. In this case, it may be highly beneficial to allow private companies to take over the market, as large energy companies already exist. However stringent regulations would be necessary so as to avoid large-scale issues such as the controversy revolving around the Dakota Access Pipeline, or environmental hazards such as the BP Oil Spill.
Additionally, if there is a heavier emphasis upon environmental concerns, additional spending could be slated for renewable energy sources, either subsidizing its installment, or increased funding towards furthering its development. Initially, this will be relatively costly, but as the world scrambles to meet its 17 terawatt demand for energy and renewable resources become far more commonplace, the costs of renewable energy should inevitable decrease as demand increases. Just take the example of solar energy; its cost has fallen by over 70% over the span of less than a decade. Rapid expansion and improvement in this area could lead to dramatic increases in energy production, and a huge reduction of the US’s carbon emissions, which is a huge benefit to the global struggle against climate change.
It is highly advisable to at least maintain current spending on the Department of Energy, which hovers around $32 billion, if not increase it to pursue developments in green energy.
Water Management:
Levees and dams exist within all 50 states, however, some are relatively unused, even if they are aged. Relatively few floods occur in states in the midwest or Alaska, so the fact that levees in those states are in a state of disrepair are of little consequence. However, they are of vital consequence on coastal states, and states which major rivers cut through, such as the Colorado and Mississippi. In there year of 2011, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimated that about $150 billion worth of property was saved by levees that held back flooding. The National Levee Database (NLD) estimates that a total of $100 billion is needed to simply rehabilitate the levees currently un use, of $25 billion over the course of the next four years. Dams are more versatile, acting as a source of power, irrigation, flood prevention, and even drinking water.