We can thank inequality for America’s inadequate — and increasingly unsafe — basic infrastructure.
Investing in infrastructure used to be a political no-brainer. Politicians of nearly every ideological stripe supported government spending on everything from school buildings to bridges.
The more conservative pols would typically favor highways, the more liberal preferred mass transit. But nearly all elected officials considered quality infrastructure essential. Businesses simply couldn’t thrive, even conservatives understood, without it.
This consensus remains solid — among the American people. Only 6 percent of Americans, one poll last year found, consider infrastructure “not that important” or “not important at all.” Among our politicians, it’s a different story. Infrastructure has become a political hot potato. Congress can barely reach any consensus at all. Lawmakers have spent more than two years haggling over a bare-bones transportation bill.
Overall, U.S. infrastructure spending has declined dramatically. Back in 1968, federal outlays for basic infrastructure amounted to 3.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Last year, federal infrastructure investments made up only 1.3 percent of GDP. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that we would now need to spend $2.2 trillion over five years to adequately “maintain and upgrade” America’s roads, dams, drinking water, school buildings, and the like.
But lawmakers in Congress are moving in the opposite direction. The House’s 2013 budget, if adopted by the Senate, would force massive cutbacks in infrastructure investment.
The impact of these cutbacks? Still more potholes, brownouts, and overcrowded classrooms and buses.
The irony in all this: We ought to be witnessing right now a historic surge in infrastructure investment. The cost of borrowing for infrastructure projects, the Economic Policy Institute’s Ethan Pollack points out, has hit record lows — and the private construction companies that do infrastructure work remain desperate for contracts. They’re charging less.
“We’re getting much more bang for our buck than we usually do,” says Pollack.
Yet our political system seems totally incapable of responding to the enormous opportunity we have before us. Center for American Progress analysts David Madland and Nick Bunker blame this political dysfunction on inequality.
The more wealth concentrates, their research shows, the feebler a society’s investments in infrastructure become. Our nation’s long-term decline in federal infrastructure investment — from 3.3 percent of GDP in 1968 to 1.3 percent in 2011 — turns out to mirror almost exactly the long-term shift in income from America’s middle class to the richest Americans. And the U.S. states where the rich have gained the most at the expense of the middle class turn out to be the states that invest the least in infrastructure.
Why should this be the case? Madland and Bunker cite several dynamics at play. In more equal societies, middle classes will be more politically powerful. That matters because the middle class has a vested interest in healthy levels of infrastructure investment. Middle class families depend on good roads, public schools, and mass transit much more than rich families. Rich kids may attend private schools, and the ultra-wealthy can even commute by helicopter to avoid traffic congestion.
Some wealthy people, Madland and Bunker acknowledge, do see the connection between infrastructure and healthy economic development. But increased investment in infrastructure demands higher taxes, and lower tax rates have always been among the “more cherished priorities of the rich.”
“When push comes to shove, infrastructure is likely to take a backseat to keeping taxes low,” they posit. “There is a significant body of evidence that suggests a strong middle class is important for public investments.”
Unequal societies — like the contemporary United States — have weak middle classes. That leaves Americans with a basic choice. We can press for greater equality. Or spend more time dodging potholes.
Sam Pizzigati edits Too Much, the weekly Institute for Policy Studies newsletter on excess and inequality.Visit www.toomuchonline.org for a longer version of this essay.
Distributed via OtherWords (OtherWords.org)
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Looking for something?
New on bluetabletalk…
- The Parched Truth About American Jobs
- When Are 12-year Olds Sex Offenders?
- Obama Admin Secretly Obtains Trove of Associated Press Phone Records in “Unprecedented Intrusion”
- Failing to Heal: Hunger Strikes in Guantánamo and the Role of Medical Professionals
- US Foreign Policy on Trial in Guatemala’s Genocide Trial
- Future Politics: Fast Forward or Full Reverse
- Survival of the … Nicest? Check Out the Other Theory of Evolution
- Victory for Lake County 8th Grader as School Board Settles Gay-Straight Alliance Lawsuit After One Day
- America Wages War on Sex
- How Reinhart-Rogoff and the Austerians Produced a Sloppy Scholarly Fraud
- National Day of Reason Reaffirms the Separation of Church and State
- Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History
- Dump the AARP
- Why Pride, Dignity and Respect Hold the Key to Ending Violence
- ACLU Statement on Miranda Rights of Boston Bombings Suspect
- Painting a Grim Picture of Art Education
- Following Push by ACLU, Lake County School Board Decides Not to Ban All Clubs
- The Case for Platonic Marriage
- CEO Pay: The French Have a Better Idea
- Fracking the First Amendment
The good man understands what is right,
the bad man understands profit.
“The greatest country, the richest country, is not that which has the most capitalists, monopolists, immense grabbings, vast fortunes, with its sad, sad soil of extreme, degrading, damning poverty, but the land in which there are the most homesteads, freeholds — where wealth does not show such contrasts high and low, where all men have enough — a modest living— and no man is made possessor beyond the sane and beautiful necessities.”
–Walt Whitman (1819-1892)
'He leaves us a lesson, which is to never accept any injustice.'
–The French President, François Hollande, speaking of Stéphane Hessel, dead at age 95.
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…”
Around the web…
Above the law"The laws, Cicero wrote in the days of the Roman Republic, “are silent in time of war.” But what if the war has no end, no defined enemy, no defined territory? How can markets work if the financial behemoths are too big to fail and too big to jail? If the national security state has the power of life or death above the law, and Wall Street has the power to plunder beyond the law, in what way does this remain a nation of laws? " --Katrina van Heuvel
Waking From My Moral Coma"It is the killing, it is the permanent war, it is our deranged national priorities. It is the system we live under which requires the serial deaths of all those innocents to maintain our economic health that should appall us. We sup upon the blood and bonemeal that is the byproduct of the idea that is America, and we sleep. And we sleep." -William Rivers Pitt
- Diana on Is Your Bubbly Soap Making the Kids Sick?
- Bob HILL on Vocabulary for the New Millenium: Reconciling Independence with Interdependence
- Gerry Tatham on Alan Grayson. “Aaron Swartz, R.I.P.”
- Rabbi Stanley Howard Schwartz DD on Alan Grayson. “Aaron Swartz, R.I.P.”
- j j on SOTU 2013: Not a Game-Changing Agenda
Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition