Slashdot Mirror
Trump's New Infrastructure Plan Calls For Selling Off Two Airports (politico.com)
The Trump administration has released an infrastructure plan on Monday that proposes that the federal government considers selling off Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport. According to Trump's blueprint, the administration wants to allow federal agencies to divest assets if they "can demonstrate an increase in value from the sale would optimize the taxpayer value for federal assets." It also includes the George Washington and Baltimore Washington parkways, the Washington Aqueduct and the transmission assets of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Administration on the list for "potential divesture." Politico reports: State and local agencies or the private sector may be better at managing assets currently owned by the federal government, the administration argues, and federal agencies should be able to "identify appropriate conditions under which sales would be made." They should also "delineate how proceeds would be spent." Under the administration's proposal, federal agencies would have to complete an analysis demonstrating an "increase in value from divestiture." Though technically owned by the federal government, both airports are operated by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority under a long-term lease agreement. The 53-page infrastructure plan lays out a vision to turn $200 billion in federal money into $1.5 trillion for fixing America's infrastructure by leveraging local and state dollars and private investment. "The White House says its plan will create $1.5 trillion for repairing and upgrading America's infrastructure," reports CNNMoney. "Only $200 billion of that, however, would come from direct federal spending. The rest is supposed to come from state and local governments, which are expected to match any federal allocation by at least a four-to-one ratio. States have gradually assumed more of the responsibility for funding infrastructure in recent years, and the White House says it wants to accelerate that trend."
As for how the money would be split up, the plan says that half of the new federal money, $100 billion, "would be parceled out as incentives to local government entities," reports CNNMoney. "An additional $20 billion would go toward 'projects of national significance' that can 'lift the American spirit,'" while another $50 billion will be designated "for rural block grants, most of which will be given to states according to a formula based on the miles of rural roads and the rural population they have," reports CNNMoney. "The rest of the money would support other infrastructure-related undertakings..."
As for how the money would be split up, the plan says that half of the new federal money, $100 billion, "would be parceled out as incentives to local government entities," reports CNNMoney. "An additional $20 billion would go toward 'projects of national significance' that can 'lift the American spirit,'" while another $50 billion will be designated "for rural block grants, most of which will be given to states according to a formula based on the miles of rural roads and the rural population they have," reports CNNMoney. "The rest of the money would support other infrastructure-related undertakings..."
https://www.newyorker.com/maga...
This is how you turn the first world into the third world
So his way of paying for it is by forcing the states to match him at least 4:1?
This works incredibly well. For example, the federal Department of Education doles out a minuscule fraction compared to state and local spending but every school district fights tooth and nail and adopts basically whatever testing procedures, etc, the feds dictate for those incremental funds.
Actually if you weren't a complete moron intentionally and replete with zero acting chops, you'd already know the parties have switched sides on several positions since the 19th Century. (Racism specifically, rather bigly)
Nazism is the modern GOP, racism, fascism, salute the flag or get beat up, I don't like the media we need state media, blah blah... you are so oblivious you don't even realize you're shouting and goosestepping around lol?
Zee books are zee liberal rag of zee Jooz, vee must Trumpst only zee Fraudther to lead zee Childrenz away from zee lying Social Sciences...
David Duke who? Good nazis on both sides? Get a life moron lol. Preferably before Trump dies in prison, but I don't think I'd put money on that, you seem like you're in there pretty deep. Try a laxative.
Divesture of surplus military bases from the WW2 and cold war eras has been going on for decades, spanning the tenure of presidents of various stripes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure/
This is a whole other kettle of fish.
Were that I say, pancakes?
It is the only way you are ever going to see Trump International Airport.
Private business is going to sink billions much more efficiently to renovate, modernize and run
Just like they did in Flint, MI when the water supply was privatized?
Private business will do everything they can to take as much profit as they can while performing the bare minimum maintenance that they think will allow them to avoid lawsuits. They don't give a shit if the infrastructure completely crumbles because they're walking away with huge profits that they can use to buy something else to strip all the value out of.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. What proponents of privatization often fail to account for is that large infrastructure projects don't lend themselves well to free market competition.
Read up on all the controversies around the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Ontario... and get ready for owners of private infrastructure to pull that same crap hundreds of times over across hundreds of other bridges, roads, and waterways across America.
Want to build a competitor to DCA within reasonable distance of the Washington DC metro area? Good luck. In many places it's not just a question of land acquisition... there are many locations where local geography limits where airports can be built or where bridges can cross rivers. Look at the terrain around Pittsburgh... want to build another international airport there, maybe closer to the city? I'd like to see someone try.
I HATE planning roadtrips across Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma... not because of all the stereotypes about flyover country (I actually love the scenery), but because of all the damn toll roads. For each road, I have to figure out: do they take cash, are they toll by plate (with a hefty surcharge for being unregistered), or do they use any of a number of incompatible tolling systems? If I register my rental car's tags in one city will my registration be valid in another? And avoiding the tolls in places like Kansas just to cross the state means you have to go MILES out of your way on two lane roads. Is it reasonable to expect that someone will be able to raise enough money to build a competing toll road, parallel to an existing one? In contrast, I can drive anywhere in a dozen northeastern states and know that any toll road will take EZpass.
There's a big lake near my house that TVA sold off to a private company some years ago. Sure, the buyers spent money fixing up boat ramps and picnic areas... but then they decided to drain the lake for a year to do some maintenance on the dam. Now, if this were still government land it would be common sense to expect that you explore the lake bed at your own risk (people do that anyway when the lake is drawn down for the winter), but since the lake was now private property, the company used trespassing laws to enforce a complete closure of the entire lake and all adjacent land. And who did they use to enforce the closure? The local sheriff's department.
Yep, I'm going to point out a bridge. I drove over the I35 bridge in Minneapolis nearly every day coming home from work prior to it's collapse. It was dumb luck I didn't leave work 10 minutes later that day or I would likely have been on it when it went down.
But hey, if you don't want to take my anecdotal example, you can just go check transportation.gov and get a state by state breakdown of structurally deficient bridges yourself:
https://www.transportation.gov...
Now maybe you don't take much stock in their numbers, but personally after watching the bridge I made my daily commute over for years catastrophically collapse, I think it's worth at least considering that there may be some truth to these claims.
Maybe elsewhere they make big money, but in the US, it's not quite true. Here's the budget for Los Angeles World Airports. Now, at first blush it looks like they'll make about $100MM in profit in 2017; however, tearing into it, you see they do that by issuing $680MM in new bonds, and paying our $560MM in old bond servicing. So basically their profit comes from issuing new debt. Not quite as much of a gold mine as many would think, especially for the 2nd busiest airport in the US.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We never had a surplus. The national debt has increased every year since 1957.
That's an interesting chart.
The only way for the debt to increase is to spend more than was brought in.
Actually, no. You seem to have missed the words "Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc."
The debt on that page can increase when the government prints more money.
The "surplus" was in name only, because it only dealt with some of the spending of the Federal Government. But we haven't had a surplus since 1957, back when Ike was rolling out the Interstate highway system.
According to the Congressional Budget Office there were real surpluses in the years 1969, and 1998-2001. You'll have to go to Historical Budget Data and open some Excel files to see the actual numbers, but if you do you will see that the debt held by the public decreased in each of those years.
However, that's neither here nor there. Quibbling over the exact numbers doesn't change the fact that Bill Clinton (and a Republican congress) either generated a surplus, or brought America as close as it has been since 1957. But in either case, George W. Bush (and a Republican congress) turned it into the largest deficits in America's history, through a combination of new spending, tax cuts and a disastrous recession.
Fanatically anti-fanatical