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..."

Comments

Private ownership of public infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the "de-platforming" trolls to find out that "they own it, so you have to do what they say" becomes incredibly problematic in real world contexts.

Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure

[postbigbang]

It's not a huge risk, it's a money-making public asset. Airports are gold mines. Besides gate fees, there are lots of bucks to be made renting space, parking spaces, food/taxes, fuel/taxes, and far more.

Other nations might sell off their assets, and they're idiots.

Instead, sell off and stop the tax monies to private airports, thousands of them that serve general aviation, and make them stand on their own feet without tax dollar support. Make private aviation have to pay its own dues, rather than shifting the cost to the cattle car carriers we call airlines.

Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure

[meerling]

Technically you are correct.
However as we do have groups that are referred to as neo-nazis, who follow the teachings and ideals of the nazis, and even use one of the nazi flags, we have fucking nazis.

If it looks like a nazi, talks like a nazi, and goosesteps like a nazi... I'm sure you get the idea...

Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure

[AmiMoJo]

Airports are unsuitable for private ownership because there is little meaningful competition. It's not like a rival can open their own competing airport nearby.

Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure

[serviscope_minor]

Other nations sell off their airports and let the private sector take that huge risk.

No they don't, because they need the airports. All that happens is that debts and long term contracts to private companies are hidden from the national debt figures and the government has to underwrite everything anyway because the airport is too important to go out of business.

It's just a way of privatising the profits while socalising the risks.

Interesting notion

[Pop69]

I presume he already has a couple of friends lined up to buy them ?

In other words...

[Sarten-X]

In other words, government agencies are now expected to put a dollar value on their historic icons, landmark infrastructure, and carefully-controlled limited-development areas, and sell them to the highest bidders, then turn around and give that money to the federal government to cover tax cuts for the companies who just bought our society.

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatism has been redefined as taking what is owned by the public and giving it to multinational corporations for kickbacks and contributions. That's literally all they care to do now. They love uneducated voters. Nuff said.

Re:In other words...

[Rick Schumann]

Or, more briefly and bluntly: FUCK citizens, they don't matter, only corporations and The Rich matter.
We can't get this jackass and his cronies out of office fast enough. Now he's going to try to literally destroy the country.

Re:In other words...

[Somebody Is Using My]

"Money-losing infrastructure"? Is our infrastructure supposed to be making money? Is that supposed to be the goal of our government? Are both failing if they are not profit-making machines? Is that how we are supposed to look at things now?

Infrastructure is a government provided service for the common weal. We-the-Citizens (and most non-citizens too, while we're at it) pay for it in order to make our lives better - and to help our business prosper too, if possible. I don't care if the local highway or park aren't profitable; the lack is made up by my taxes. I do have a concern if the taxes are poorly spent or self-serving pork projects get tax money they shouldn't... but the solution isn't too de-fund infrastructure in general.

Or are we now saying that things like Dulles Airport are unnecessary?

This whole thing reminds me of Ajit Pai's "solution" to the US's poor internet ranking: if not enough people are getting broadband, redefine broadband until it's slow enough that the statistics don't look as bad. Meanwhile, with Trump: If maintaining government infrastructure costs more than we would like to pay, sell it all until it matches our budget. It's all about moving the goalposts - at a cost to the citizen - rather than fixing the actual problem.

Re:In other words...

[Ksevio]

Gotta love Repuli-Math!

The stimulus package went to the economy - there were lots of infrastructure projects (jobs!) that were funded from it and our economy went from being in a decline to growing (more jobs!).

Trump on the other hand is pissing away trillions to give to his wealthy friends while CUTTING infrastructure spending.

Re:In other words...

[LeftCoastThinker]

Airports should be breaking even, such that the users are paying for all the costs, while maintaining it and providing for any needed renovation and expansion. The US tax payer should not be subsidizing your air travel.

Roads should be breaking even with the federal $0.18/gallon gas tax so that the users are paying for all the costs while maintaining and providing for needed repaving and any needed expansion. (That is breaking down with EVs, so we may need to go with some kind of road pass tracker that bills monthly for actual miles driven if you own an EV or annual based on verified mileage from your insurer, etc. They also probably need to update the mileage fees for semi and delivery trucks since they put a lot of wear and tear on the roads as well.)

The taxpayers already forked over for the initial construction, and forcing us all to subsidize maintenance is not something that the Federal government is efficient with.

Re:In other words...

[hdyoung]

What Trump says he will do in the future is always going to be better than what Obama's real accomplishments. On paper. Maybe. If all those discredited assumptions and flat-out fabrications actually come to pass. Which they will. Totally. Trust him. Only he can fix our problems. It'll be yuge.

This has been known for months

[rsilvergun]

his "Infrastructure Plan" is to give away vast amounts of infrastructure so the folks that helped elect him can profit from it (after the public paid to build it). Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. The frustrating thing is that it's going to take decades to undo the damage this crap causes. Hopefully enough opposition gets into Congress to stop him from selling off the interstate roads. I'm not looking forward to $20 in tolls just to get to work every morning, but I can guarantee you somebody is.

Re:This has been known for months

[LeftCoastThinker]

Except these buildings and projects are 30 plus years old on a 40-50y planned life, which the government has not been even doing the minimum maintenance on in many cases while continuously losing money.

There are no losses being socialized, rather Trump is using the private sector profit motivation: you know, the thing that lets you get good products like your smartphone and good customer service, at least where there is competition and where you have the right to sue if you have an unresolved issue (no, you can't sue the federal government in nearly all cases).

Private business is going to sink billions much more efficiently to renovate, modernize and run, and then the people who actually use those services are going to pay for it, not the entire US tax base, which is both fair and reasonable. At the end of the day we will get some money back to the US tax payer for infrastructure with less than 10 years remaining (before major renovations are required) and going forward the customers who use the facilities will pay for their maintenance and upkeep. Just like any other pay to use piece of property...

Re:This has been known for months

[Patent Lover]

National Airport opened in 1941 and is currently expanding. It doesn't need a private business to "sink billions" into it.

Re:This has been known for months

[dryeo]

If the airports are operating at capacity, there won't be much competition, same if they're too spread out.
Roads and bridges would probably be private/public partnerships. Private business gets its loans guaranteed by the government as well as guaranteed income. Looks good on paper, the government doesn't actually borrow money or raise taxes and the business gets a guaranteed profit.
In reality, it turns out that people avoid tolls if they can and the government still has to subsidize the bridge to make up for the shortfall and the next election, the other party runs on a platform of eliminating the tolls, wins and has to pay off the bridge and the private company. Taxpayers lose.

Don't sell infrastructure

[MobyDisk]

Instead, of selling critical infrastructure to businesses, make sure the bidding process to build & maintain those things is based on solid business foundations. There's too much crony-ism in the bidding process, too much bias toward existing contractors regardless of performance.

Trumps red hole

[bigtreeman]

There's a red hole in the budget caused by reducing corporate taxes, allowing companies to screw the government.
And it's really sore.

Fiscal conservativism

[PopeRatzo]

Trump could do anything. Especially run up bills on the joint's credit. And why not? Nobody's gonna pay for it anyway. And as soon as the deliveries are made in the front door, you move the stuff out the back and sell it at a discount. You take a two hundred dollar case of booze and you sell it for a hundred. It doesn't matter. It's all profit. And then finally, when there's nothing left, when you can't borrow another buck from the bank or buy another case of booze, you bust the joint out. You light a match.

Fuck you, pay me.

In other words ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

In other words, Trump isn't doing a goddamned thing, is doing his standard trick of making other people spend their money and take the risk while he puts his name on it, and is going to transfer public assets into private assets. This is pretty much how he built all of his other failed ventures.

This is such a bullshit 'plan' it defies belief ... because Trump is a crook and thief who apparently can't do math.

But in the mean time he'll be sure people are dying in the streets because they have no healthcare, but his rich asshole friends all get tax breaks.

I swear, the economics trotted out by Republicans is a complete fantasy most of the time.

Re:User Fees

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You misunderstand your own example. What brings costs down is competition. A lot of big pieces of infrastructure like airports do not have head-to-head competition. If you hate your local airport and need to fly cross country for business, are you going to take a train? If the major freeways around your home are privately owned, are you going to walk?

I know that it is fashionable to pretend that government is bad at everything and private enterprise is better, but it is simply not true in the real world.

Re:The PepsiCo White House

[fred911]

No, that would be "Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator: It's got what plants crave! It's got electrolytes."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

We Know How Well Electricity Deregulation Worked

[BBF_BBF]

Well, let's see, after deregulation of the Electricity market caused the power shortages in California since the private power companies realized that the capital costs involved with building new generation capacity was really expensive and that electricity is a necessity, so they just stopped building new plants and just raised electricity prices. Plus Enron.

So with regards to the selling of federal assets: It may be that the private market will game the system better with the extra control they have over the most valuable assets... they'll let buildings run down even more and charge even higher fees because it's really expensive and time consuming to build another airport near Washington DC... and if you start, they'll wait until you're underway and then cut their pricing to bankrupt your project and then raise prices even higher afterwards.

Yeah, sell the assets once to get a lump sum now, pay from now to eternity "leasing" it back. We'll see how the state's and city's budgets will look like in 10 years for the ones that sold their legislative offices to private enterprise so they can lease them back...

Re:Mythology

[RazorSharp]

Well, I'm sure someone will point to a bridge or two that is in need of repair, or provide some anecdotal evidence regarding the potholes they must suffer through on their morning commute. It's part of the idiocracy that's formed: outliers become evidence for broad trends. Just look at all the FUD surrounding terrorism. Even though terrorist attacks are very rare, it's the one thing people are afraid of and want protection from. If people wanted protection from real life dangers they would demand more trains, as cars are so deadly. Of course, the rebuttal to that would be the two outlier train crashes that recently happened.