WILL infrastructure jobs really go away b/c of lack of funding after the stimulus has been spent?

[CTyankee]

I'm hearing this from several places. Is this one of those faux "concerns" of the pukes or is this something with some merit?

I don't want to even think of a bridge half constructed left to wrack and ruin when the money runs out and nothing is there to replace it. I know that it didn't happen that way with other infrastructure projects in our history (or did it?), but I'm scared like everybody else.

If there are any real analyses of this issue (not RW propaganda) out there I'd love to see them!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. There's probably no analysis because it's not a legitimate issue.

There's no way we're going to be left with a 1/2 constructed bridge unless Republicans decide to filibuster a bill that would provide completion funds. That's just not going to happen, at least not successfully.

[CTyankee]

2. But Iguess my worry is that the repukes will sabotage the stimulus by

slicing money out of each project in the bill, thereby rendering all of the projects at risk for being completely funded. They could say "we'll be evenhanded and take x% out of each project so that all projects are funded, but truly are underfunded. Then, when they can't successfully be completed the repukes just say "See, we told you it couldn't work."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. I actually think that would work out better for us if they pulled that.

Again, I'm operating from the premise that if a project were already underway and, say, 3/4ths complete, you can either give it the money it needs to finish or turn the whole thing into waste. Under that, I don't think there's any possible way the additional funding wouldn't be approved. I don't think Republicans would ever get to say "we told you it couldn't work" because they'll never get to the point of doing it in the first place. What they would do is essentially what we're seeing now - that these projects are "waste" yadda yadda yadda. Truth is, that argument can only really work if/when the project is complete in most of these cases, which is why the stimulus will pass ultimately. Conversely, I think if an across the board cut were instituted, Democrats would say "Look, we did it your way, even though we told you it needed this much money. You were wrong. We're making it right." Given the political capital currently involved, that's a losing battle for Republicans.

No, I think if Republicans are to do anything it will be to try to strip out entire projects rather than an across the board cut. It may be the politically lazy way to do things (the across the board, that is), and I may be underestimating their stupidity, but I doubt they'd be so foolish as to set themselves up for massive failure like that.

[ellacott]

3. I don't think they are going to leave the projects incomplete

But I do wonder what will happen after the projects are completed. Will unemployment just go back up?

[Occam Bandage]

5. Um...I'm not sure why any state would decide to build a bridge it couldn't fund.

That's kind of a nonsense claim, I think, much like saying, "Well what if a state decides to build an elevator to the moon and then they can't even get it out of the troposphere!"

[CTyankee]

6. No, the state wouldn't do that. I'm talking about repubs in Congress.

I'm sure the states have put an accurate price tag on each of their "shovel ready" projects. But some of these repub neanderthals in Congress are bound and determined to show that government programs "don't work." They're foolish and self defeating but they can cause trouble. So far, I haven't seen any of their more moderate members take them aside and tell them to stop acting that way...