Patterico's Pontifications

12/5/2016

Rush Limbaugh Praises Trump’s Trillion-Dollar Infrastructure Plan

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:30 pm



Rush Limbaugh spent part of the morning justifying Donald Trump’s trillion-dollar infrastructure program. Neither man has apparently ever heard of Bastiat or Henry Hazlitt. That’s why Rush can’t explain why this boondoggle is a problem.

It’s OK. I’ll explain it, since Rush won’t.

Here’s Rush:

If Trump actually follows through on this trillion dollars to modernize airports, you’re gonna have conservative arguments against it claiming this is not how it works. This is still federal spending, it’s still budget busting, it’s still massively expanding the government. However, there will be tangible results that will result in improved and modernized airports, which will make them more economically booming, which they will then be able to attract more traffic, more landings and takeoffs, which include fees, more cargo being moved back and forth through them. So it’s gonna be an interesting philosophical argument. The idea of conservatism and smaller government, less government.

And then on the other hand, the projects we’re talking about . . . who builds them? I mean the federal government built the interstate highway system. It was a federal government expense. Same thing with those two bridges. They did it in connection with the states, I mean, there was, there was a lot of cooperation on all of these, the Hoover Dam in Nevada, and so forth. And there were other things. And don’t forget, even prior to that, we did the Panama Canal, even prior to the 1930s.

The point is, in the past, with a much smaller economy, and a much lower standard of living, we have been far more productive. We have built many more projects at a much faster rate before all the environmental impact studies were necessary, and all this. And if Trump does this and if there are witnessable, demonstrable results of modernization at airports, you’re gonna be hard-pressed to get people to find a problem with it.

What are you frowning at me for? If, well, of course it could backfire, but on the other hand, don’t forget my three initials FDR. FDR doing all this stuff gave the Democrat party a 50-year guaranteed majority. Well, that was his dream, it didn’t actually work out to 50 years, but he made the Democrat party a majority party.

Remember: Trump’s not a conservative. So small government, less government, that’s not how he sees things. And I’ve tried to tell people this from the beginning of the campaign. He does things and says things that sound conservative, and he’s gonna do things that sound conservative. He’s gonna also do things that are not gonna look conservative. ‘Cause he’s not an ideologue. He’s a results guy and get things done. And he’ll look at that trillion dollars as an investment, and he’ll tabulate a way of having, of showing that it paid off. Even though the philosophical, theoretical discussion will argue against it.

Rush tried to warn us, you guys! He told us Trump was not conservative! We shoulda listened to Rush!

Except Rush never really seemed to be warning us. He always seemed to be justifying Trump’s non-conservative ideas — just like he does today.

Rather than explain why it’s wrong, he simply declares that the pointy heads will have their theoretical discussions, but Trump will call it an “investment.” If that word sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the word that Obama and the other Democrats always use to describe government spending. Why is Rush Limbaugh justifying a Democrat code word for spending?? Next thing you know, Trump will be proposing a tax increase on the wealthy, and Rush will tell us that all Trump is doing is “asking the wealthy to pay a little more.” Good gravy.

OK, I’m going to do what Rush should have done here, and explain why increased government spending is not always good, even on infrastructure.

The first argument is that we are about $20 trillion in debt, with tens or hundreds of trillions more in unfunded liabilities, and this is all taxation on our children, who can’t vote against it. It’s taxation of future generations without representation, and it’s unAmerican.

The second problem — and I hate to sound like a broken record here — has to do with Bastiat’s principle of the seen and unseen. Look at what I have bolded above. Much of Rush’s argument here revolves around the idea that there will be “tangible results” — that “if there are witnessable, demonstrable results” then “you’re gonna be hard-pressed to get people to find a problem with it.”

In other words, there will be results that can be seen. But this requires taxation, which prevents private citizens from doing other things with the money, and that is the unseen. In his fantastic book Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt explained the logic with respect to a publicly funded bridge:

Two arguments are put forward for the bridge, one of which is mainly heard before it is built, the other of which is mainly heard after it has been completed. The first argument is that it will provide employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a year. The implication is that these are jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence.

This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained ourselves to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and beyond those who are directly benefited by a government project to others who are indirectly affected, a different picture presents itself. It is true that a particular group of bridgeworkers may receive more employment than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $10 million the taxpayers will lose $10 million. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most.

Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $10 million taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, television technicians, clothing workers, farmers.

But then we come to the second argument. The bridge exists. It is, let us suppose, a beautiful and not an ugly bridge. It has come into being through the magic of government spending. Where would it have been if the obstructionists and the reactionaries had had their way? There would have been no bridge. The country would have been just that much poorer. Here again the government spenders have the better of the argument with all those who cannot see beyond the immediate range of their physical eyes. They can see the bridge. But if they have taught themselves to look for indirect as well as direct consequences they can once more see in the eye of imagination the possibilities that have never been allowed to come into existence. They can see the unbuilt homes, the unmade cars and washing machines, the unmade dresses and coats, perhaps the ungrown and unsold foodstuffs. To see these uncreated things requires a kind of imagination that not many people have. We can think of these nonexistent objects once, perhaps, but we cannot keep them before our minds as we can the bridge that we pass every working day. What has happened is merely that one thing has been created instead of others.

I suppose this is the sort of pointy-headed theorizing that Rush airily dismisses. But it’s not mere theorizing. It’s economic reality. By way of analogy: communism doesn’t work — and the reasons might sound like ivory-tower economic theory, right up until millions starve to death.

And I guarantee you, if we spend a trillion dollars that we don’t have, all these pointy-headed theoretical concerns are going to get very real. Jobs will be lost. The economy will spiral downward.

Of course, people won’t realize why. But I just told you why. It just takes some imagination to realize it.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

102 Responses to “Rush Limbaugh Praises Trump’s Trillion-Dollar Infrastructure Plan”

  1. Ask yourself: what would Cruz do?

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  2. Every time, the same lie, we can make money by confiscating it from the people and running it through a government program that can only, at best, duplicate what private enterprise could have done if people had wanted to spend their money that way.

    “As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
    And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire…”

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  3. let’s wait and see the details

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  4. There actually are some cases where infrastructure improvements are fiscally a good move. Several things are required; it has to be needed, it has to be revenue-generating, and it has to be done with an eye to economic need. A needed new bridge to alleviate traffic congestion in a thriving area can be beneficial economically (though IMHO that area, not the feds, should pay for it).

    Some airports *might* be such a case, if it’s needed, and if it’s paid for by, say, landing fees due to attracting more flights.

    My take; about 5% of that infrastructure package taking shape looks like it may be justified and sound – depending on how it is paid for. The other 95%, however, is shaping up to be a yuuuge budget-busting boondoggle.

    As for Limbough, his comments don’t change my opinion of him; I’ve always considered him to be a bloviating hypocrite.

    Arizona CJ (191c8a)

  5. No bridge, no roads, no commerce.

    Dan (198314)

  6. I totally agree with Bastiat’s theories and Hayek’s as well. I listen to Rush pretty regularly, and I don’t think he has dismissed Trump’s non-conservatism at all. But that’s my take… As Rush also talked about today, before the income tax the government paid for things by enacting tariffs. That has unseen costs too.

    So instead of theory, let’s talk practical applications. Who should then build an airport, if not the government? I would say, airlines maybe. But the unseen there is that the price of a seat would increase tremendously given all the expenditures of the airlines to build the structures and the systems. Who should build a highway? Or a court system and its attorneys?

    What should the government build, pay for, at all?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  7. Patricia, The federal government doesn’t need to be building jacknsauat.

    Donald (0efab6)

  8. Um jack squat. Sorry.

    Donald (0efab6)

  9. The states? Do whatever you want.

    Donald (0efab6)

  10. If it’s coupled with a repeal of Davis-Bacon, I could get behind it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  11. bridges – bridges i like cause of these are how i get over the rivers

    roads – i’m ok with roads especially for road trips (they don’t have to be interstates)

    bike lanes – these are gay

    mass transit – this lady threw up on me on the train once i wanted to die

    airports – i hate flying but i hate ghetto airports even more – please to make them more fancy

    drone ports – this is how we will get the burritos (future burritos)

    port facilities – we’re way too dependent on those thuggy nasty california longshore losers

    bike lanes – these are still gay

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  12. @Patricia:What should the government build, pay for, at all?

    Nothing that can be priced.

    An example you may be familiar with: the UL rating on electrical appliances stands for “Underwriter’s Laboratories”; insurance companies refused to cover fire policies for unsafe electrical appliances and so they established standards and laboratories to test products. You don’t have to buy UL-rated appliances if you don’t want to, though I’m not sure where you’d get them, it would be pretty silly to buy them.

    Roads and bridges that confer obvious economic benefit can easily be built with private money, if a government doesn’t hinder it. Otherwise you get “Bridge to Nowhere” type projects.

    According to CBO Federal highway spending is only weakly correlated with traffic.

    “Almost all federal spending for highways occurs through formula grants to state and local governments, and historically, less than half of the funding has been tied directly to the amount of travel on the roads. Although data from the past 20 years show that, on average, pavement quality is improving, fewer bridges have deficiencies, and highway fatalities occur less frequently, those averages mask differences between urban and rural areas and between Interstate highways and other roads, differences that sometimes are not reflected in spending. For example, even though highway travel is more concentrated on Interstates and in urban areas, and urban roads are typically in poorer condition than rural ones, the federal government and state governments typically have spent more per mile of travel for major repairs on rural roads.

    Moreover, the extent to which new highways boost economic activity has generally declined over time, increasing the importance of maintaining existing capacity. Yet spending has not shifted much accordingly.”

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  13. That’s a nice zero-sum argument and, as most of them are, it’s probably wrong.

    The $10 million was not burned. It went back into the economy and paid for bridge workers to buy refrigerators. Bridge workers who would have been either unemployed or working on some other bridge-building project. Or maybe selling shoes and making half the wages and dreaming of maybe buying a new refrigerator when that bridge deal went though.

    Assuming that the bridge was needed, can you tell me what the difference is between the government building the bridge and a private group building the bridge? Efficiency? Perhaps. Davis-Bacon? Perhaps — in California probably the same. Why does the government’s $10 million come out of the people’s money but the private one does not? Just maybe different people.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  14. Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else.

    This is just so patently false that I don’t know where to start. Depending on how things work, each bridge job created might create a new private job, or two. Or destroy two. But it almost certainly will not be zero sum.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  15. The BEST thing he could do would be to focus on cutting regulations and promoting strategic tax cuts, along with helping to foster a vastly improved climate for business investment, job creation and growth.

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  16. For every dollar that is spent on the “bridge” a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $10 million the taxpayers will lose $10 million. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most. Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else.

    A “bridge” built with tax dollars can generate economic activity, revenue and enterprise far beyond both sides of the river it spans. More likely, more private jobs will be created by the investment in public works, aside from the lunch wagons and support services for same. Building a bridge, a dam or an ivory tower… the argument is somewhat bogus.

    Look at Las Vegas:

    http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/hoover-dams-impact-las-vegas

    “The legalization of casino gambling by the Nevada Legislature in March 1931, which enabled Las Vegas to open and operate legal casinos, also increased revenues from dam workers who came into town after work or on payday. During construction, the Hoover Dam project quickly became a national tourist attraction. Thousands of these visitors spent money in Las Vegas hotels, casinos, and other businesses. In 1932 alone, 100,000 people visited the dam construction site, and 200,000 visited Las Vegas. By 1934, 265,000 people went to the dam site and 300,000 went to Las Vegas. In the 1930s, an estimated seventy-five percent of those visiting the dam also stopped in Las Vegas…

    Without the dam and its water supply, the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area would never have seen its population grow to nearly two million by the year 2000.”

    “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.” $$$$$
    _______________

    @1- Ask yourself: what would Cruz do?

    Yes, Colonel. Let’s ask “Ted”:

    Texas Offers SpaceX $15 Million in Incentives to Build Private Spaceport
    http://www.space.com › Spaceflight

    SpaceX is subsidized by Federal funding and contracting.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  17. Serial chicken plucking going on here.

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  18. It the project is built with funds from a 30 year bond, so the money is borrowed such that the funds come from people who would rather get 2% from the government rather than 2% from a bank CD, then no job is lost of the one job created by building the bridge.

    30 years down the road that bond is going to have to be paid back, and at that point a taxpayer dollar will have to be given to the holder of the bond who gave his dollar to the government.

    But in that 30 year period, if done properly, that bridge will have paid for itself many times over in terms of economic efficiencies.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  19. @Kevin M:Why does the government’s $10 million come out of the people’s money but the private one does not? Just maybe different people.

    Voluntary vs involuntary. If people voluntarily trade money for something, it is because they value it more. Coercive transfers are value destroying, people would have preferred to put their money elsewhere (if not, you did not need to coerce them).

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  20. @swc: that bridge will have paid for itself many times over in terms of economic efficiencies.

    Then someone would have turned a profit on that bridge and built it only with the money of people who benefited from that bridge. Instead of people who live all the way on the other side of the country, perhaps. Or people who don’t buy anything trafficked over that bridge.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  21. Voluntary vs involuntary.

    Yes, but that does not address which is more likely to be economically advantageous. And neither voluntary nor involuntary economic activity can be analyzed on a zero-sum basis because NO economic activity is zero-sum.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. Serial chicken plucking going on here.

    And there are so MANY feathers on this chicken.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. Yes, but that does not address which is more likely to be economically advantageous.

    Value-destroying is not economically advantageous.

    a zero-sum basis because NO economic activity is zero-sum.

    Never said it was.

    Simple thought experiment: you are very hungry and you have a dollar. A small bowl of plain white rice might be just the ticket. You freely exchange with me. You have gained more than a dollar in value, and i have gained more than a bowl of rice, even though there is still the one bowl of rice and the one dollar.

    Zero-sum: No, we both profited. Economically advantageous: Yes, since we both profited our tiny economy increased.

    Now you are not hungry at all. I say to a cop, feed that man! He drags you over, extracts a dollar from his wallet and gives it to me, and I give you the rice. I gained more than a dollar in value but you did not, because you did not want to trade your dollar for the rice.

    Zero-sum: No. I gained more than a bowl of rice in value, but you lost less than a dollar (the rice might have some small value for it). Economically advantageous: Maybe, if I gained more than you lost.

    The coercive case is worse than the free exchange case.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  24. extracts a dollar from his wallet should be extracts a dollar from your wallet

    Stupid no edit button.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  25. Bastiat’s broken window parable is much better for illustrating the seen and unseen. Let’s not be fanatics, though, sometimes society needs a damn bridge. Do you think the government’s financing the Louisiana purchase ever generated any revenue?

    creepy dude (425f40)

  26. @creepy dude:sometimes society needs a damn bridge.

    If so, individuals will gladly pay for it, voluntarily, just like they do for almost anything else they value.

    Do you think the government’s financing the Louisiana purchase ever generated any revenue?

    Yes, when the government robs people by force the government can profit from it, and so can any thug. But the people they robbed lost, and you’re not counting it.

    Lousiania “purchase” is of course a euphemism. The Corleones might purchase from the Barzinis the right to shake down your vegetable cart, and could be said to profit from that, with equal justice.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  27. There’s no point in arguing but I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to build effective air, train and road systems with each state having its own. This is the system in place now for medical insurance, 50 different kingdoms to please before you can market your product. So yes, government does have a role IMO.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  28. Limbaugh will say anything that will keep the money for V**gra, oxycontin, and Costa Rican hookers coming.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. @Patricia:There’s no point in arguing but I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to build effective air, train and road systems with each state having its own.

    Then the UN should build the world’s system, right?

    But each state DOES have its own and always has.

    People have been building roads for thousands of years, even before there were governments.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  30. The UN?.

    Like I said no point in arguing further.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  31. People were building roads for thousands of years, even before there was mathematics. But for a couple of thousand years at least — since Julius Caesar’s first proconsulship was the repair and maintenance of the farm roads and cowpaths of Rome — the public way (and not only the King’s Highway) has been within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the government.

    nk (dbc370)

  32. Mr. Hanna- I don’t think you have a solid definition of “government”. Anytime more than two people engage in collective action some type of government is going to be in place.

    creepy dude (425f40)

  33. Darius I has a 500 year edge on Julius Caesar wrt road construction and maintenance. The Royal Road probably has Assyrian roots but Darius straightened out the eminent domain problems and lengthened the road considerably.

    Jay Cooke & Company provides an excellent example of what can be accomplished in the transportation sector through mostly private efforts involving raising money and assuming risks.

    Rick Ballard (d17095)

  34. The coercive case is worse than the free exchange case.

    Unless the free-exchange case results in everyone wanting a bridge built, but everyone wants to buy ice cream with their portion of the money. Yet another “Prisoner’s Dilemma” permutation where the benefit to the many is not the sum of the perceived benefits to each of them.

    We have entities, whether condo associations or cities or nations, that are designed to cut through all the petty squabbling that people get into when deciding how to go about something they all want. And yes, there is some involuntary activity — both in the fact, and the amount — in getting certain things done.

    But it is not true that, if everyone needs a bridge and knows they need a bridge, but each would prefer buying an ice cream for themselves and letting everyone else pay for the bridge, that forcing everyone to cough up the bridge money is less efficient. Assuming you need the bridge.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  35. Rush:

    However, there will be tangible results that will result in improved and modernized airports,

    Actually, there won’t be anything unless somebody changes the permitting process, including getting rid of environmental impact statements or limiting their use and requirements.

    We’re not living under 1930s construction laws.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-put-building-permits-on-a-fast-track-1480886263

    …The Pentagon was built in 16 months. The 1,500-mile Alaska-Canadian Highway, which passes through some of the world’s most rugged terrain, took about eight months. Today, infrastructure projects across America often require several years simply to get through the federal government’s pre-build permitting process. Consider a few examples.

    New U.S. highway construction projects usually take between nine and 19 years from initial planning and permitting to completion of construction, according to a 2002 Government Accountability Office study. It will have taken 14 years to permit an expansion of Gross Reservoir in Colorado, and it took almost 20 years to permit the Kensington gold mine in Alaska.

    It took four years to construct a new runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, but it took 15 years to get the permits. Todd Hauptli of the American Association of Airport Executives bitterly joked to the Senate Commerce Committee last year, “It took longer to build that runway than the Great Pyramids of Egypt.”

    These problems have been building for decades as the U.S. regulatory state has grown.

    There’s a reason Obama did not find any shovel ready projects.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  36. Stupid no edit button.

    On this we agree. It’s almost 2017 already! I remember movies where they had flying cars and sexbots androids in 2017.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  37. Actually, there won’t be anything unless somebody changes the permitting process, including getting rid of environmental impact statements or limiting their use and requirements.

    Dear GOD, a thousand times YES!!!1!!

    ANd consider California, which has STATE laws worse than the feds and allows ANYONE to sue.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. And who told Bastiat that we build bridges so 1) we can provide employment to the bridge builders and 2) look at them and go “Ooh, bridge! when they’re finished? We build bridges so that Chicago can get Texas beef and Texas can get Kosher hot dogs. Dare I say it? They promote (ohmigosh) … trade!

    nk (dbc370)

  39. Sammy, consider the Century Freeway which took twenty years from the end of the design phase to the end of construction. Not only were there environmental suits, but there were civil rights suits.

    https://blog.longreads.com/2015/03/23/the-last-freeway/

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  40. Dare I say it? They promote (ohmigosh) … trade!

    If you build it, they may… Occasionally… Come.

    JP (683605)

  41. There are, of course, negative sum activities. Only governments can foster these for long.

    A friend of mine toured Mao’s China in the 70’s. There was this guy who had been assigned by the State to jade carving. He was NFG as a jade carver. He would get these flawless blocks of raw jade, and make the most terrible of, um, carvings out of them. Which he would attempt to sell for the cost of his time, but there were no buyers. The Labor Theory of Value. He worked hard at destroying jade.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  42. We are about $20 trillion in debt

    Yes. This IS a problem. It’s going to be more of a problem in the future, as the feds will be paying more interest the debt in future years. Obama ran it upo because his Fed kept interest rates low and the budget cost wasn’t significant. If you are paying 4% instead of 0.5%, that becomes $800 billion in debt instead of $100 billion. But Obama doesn’t care, that’s Trump’s problem now and Obama will shortly be faulting him for it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  43. maybe Mr. Trump can ask his filthy daughter how to spend a trillion dollars and lower the debt

    she’s super smart (great boobs)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  44. Ya know, nuttin’ from nuttin’, but I must confess that at least once a day since the Nov. 8th election I have an “OMG… I can’t believe Donald Trump is President of the United States of America!” moment. I wonder how long this will last.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  45. I’m enjoying staunch Conservatives defend Obama’s, er Trump’s, shovel ready job program. The future is here, by way of 2008!

    Sean (41ed1e)

  46. I was only a matter of time before the true New York liberal broke out. I had hoped it would have been sooner.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  47. You know full well, that rush has read hazlitt, but were bout 12 trillion over the mark, I’m excerpting defense.

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. Except for the 125 billion in pentagon waste.

    narciso (d1f714)

  49. Sounds like Rush’s argument for this is “it’ll make the R’s as popular today as the D’s were in the ’30’s and ’40’s”. I wonder if Rush truly understands just how much damage the D’s did back then- much of which we are still paying for.

    Bill H (971e5f)

  50. R.I.P. Van Williams, played The Green Hornet on the 1960’s tv show (w/ Bruce Lee as Kato)

    Icy (a26b65)

  51. You know full well, that rush has read hazlitt

    Do I?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  52. He’s often spoken of it in the past.

    narciso (d1f714)

  53. Patricia, I’ve noticed that the maintenance of I-5 in the Puget Sound region has sharp discontinuities at county borders: a smooth freeway surface in Pierce County is suddenly replaced by a poorly maintained one in King County, for example. I believe that each county has maintenance programs for their Federal highways and the budgets for these programs are controlled to one degree or another by local political interests. So King County spends its money on bike trails, express lanes, and elevated trains, while Pierce is still trying to make the evening commute tolerable. It is also the case that innovations to the system are usually voted on as they involve increased local taxes as well as money from Federal grants. For these reasons, I don’t think current Federal spending is focused on creating an efficient, well-designed transportation system. Eisenhower’s initiative for the interstate system may have had some elements of such a central focus since it was partially in response to perceived military needs. But today, the focus is on something else.

    I expect that when a demagogue says he’s going to increase Federal spending on infrastructure, what he’s really saying is that he will grease the wheels for more local projects. This, of course, means nothing will happen very soon, as Obama learned to his surprise. But it does increase Federal influence in the localities singled out to receive these payments. However, it doesn’t guarantee that the local projects will fit nicely into a larger plan for the country as a whole. I think Trump’s problem will be that he will have to rely on powerful Democrat machines to implement any meaningful “infrastructure investment”. Which is to say that very little will be accomplished for the benefit on the middle class or the country as whole.

    BobStewartatHome (822f64)

  54. Sean, many conservatives are troubled by this program. Even Sarah Palin, Patterico, and most commenters here.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  55. “I’VE ALREADY EXPRESSED MY DOUBTS ABOUT A BIG TRUMP INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN, but this, alas, seems right: “We’ve spent 35 years having the ‘big government versus small government’ fight. Big government won. You can be mad about it, you can disagree with it, but it is what it is.”

    I’m not opposed to better roads and airports, but the truth is, there’s been a lot of money thrown at those projects, and most of it seems to get diverted into graft, consultants, and environmental impact statements. If you really want to see infrastructure boom, get rid of a lot of that federal regulation and the existing money will go far enough to get us more and better new infrastructure than even a huge slug of new cash will get us without such reform. But my approach offers fewer opportunities for graft.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/251055/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  56. I’ve written for months as to how Rush sold his conservative soul in this cycle. Hugh Hewitt was finally and utterly exposed as an economic squish.

    If a new, or substantially re-engineered road or bridge is to be built, users pay. Simple. If government wants to front the the cash, I am fine with that. As others have mentioned, government also must get the hell out of the way, excepting genuine and rigorous design and inspection protocols which would ensure efficiency and that we get what we pay for.

    Maybe in another galaxy there is such a government.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  57. “Even though the philosophical, theoretical discussion will argue against it.”

    Rush

    He is ambivalent about it, I think.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  58. I agree AZ Bob. He’s ambivalent.

    Patricia (03e7c3)

  59. @Kevin M:But it is not true that, if everyone needs a bridge and knows they need a bridge, but each would prefer buying an ice cream for themselves and letting everyone else pay for the bridge, that forcing everyone to cough up the bridge money is less efficient.

    Who died and put you in charge of determining for everyone what they SHOULD want?

    If they want ice cream instead of your bridge, why are they wrong?

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  60. @nk:We build bridges so that Chicago can get Texas beef and Texas can get Kosher hot dogs. Dare I say it? They promote (ohmigosh) … trade!

    Do you think Bastiat didn’t know that? Did you think he didn’t address that? Did you think he didn’t write on exactly this issue at length?

    You are not making Bastiat look silly, but yourself.

    Yes bridges can promote trade. Was never in dispute by anyone. Not all bridges of course do so equally: the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere” was to connect Ketchikan, AK with its airport. And it certainly would have made it much easier for the residents of that city to get to that airport, but no way can that community afford that bridge, hence the controversy: why should people in Montana and California and Florida pay for it when it can do so little good compared to the economic benefit made available even to Ketchikan.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  61. @nk:Bastiat wrote an essay on the self-defeating purposes to which improvements such as bridges are put in his “economic sophisms”, the “Negative Railroad” and the “Obstructed River”.

    And you realize, of course, that Texas beef is totally unfair competition for Chicago cattle producers, while Kosher hot dogs from elsewhere in the country are totally unfair competition for Texas hot dog producers.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  62. @ creepydude, #33:

    Anytime more than two people engage in collective action some type of government is going to be in place.

    In other words…government is just another word for the things we choose to do together? Thanks, Obama.

    Your definition of “government” includes things like the Ford Motor Company building cars, the New York Times putting out a paper, a church group conducting a drive to gather food and clothing for the homeless, a Boy Scout troop camping out, and a family going on a picnic together. All of these things are “more than two people engag[ing] in collective action.” Therefore, your definition of “government” is semantically useless — at best. Unless you seriously want to say that when the Andersons go to the basketball game, Daddy Anderson has decreed it to be thus, all hail the mighty and generous Emperor Daddy Anderson, amen.

    Most collective actions have some form of oversight, or someone in charge (“governance,” if you like), but that does not mean they have governments. All of the cases I cite are examples of collective action ultimately undertaken by the free will of the parties involved. The concept of government, by contrast, is inextricably associated with an element of force. If I no longer want to contribute to the collective efforts of the New York Times, I can always quit my job at the newspaper. If I no longer want to contribute to the federal government, I believe the IRS will still require me to pay my taxes in spite of my wishes.

    I love that, if you just let them talk, the people with progressive inclinations ultimately out themselves.

    @ Gabriel Hanna, #61:

    Exactly. You know, since you’ve read Bastiat — and probably Hazlitt first, if you do it like most people do — that neither of them ever said “The concept of the seen and the unseen necessarily means that no public works project is ever justified.” All they said was that each project should be examined to see whether it was worth the cost…and not just the seen cost, but the unseen.

    For those who still don’t understand, consider these cases:

    If you want me to help pay for an underpass in my hometown so that traffic (including commercial traffic) does not have to wait on trains, that seems like a good use of my money from a personal convenience standpoint, and it could potentially ease and increase commercial activity. So I would vote for it.

    If you want me to help pay for dock updates in New York City…well, they may well increase commerce, but I want to know what benefit I would be seeing from it. (Sure, the economy of Tennessee got better because of the works of the TVA. But how many economies around the country got a little worse because their money was sent to Tennessee so the lives of Tennesseans could get noticeably better? And what benefits did they see from the increased welfare of the people in Tennessee? And were those benefits worth the costs?)

    If you want me to help pay for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, which costs me money and doesn’t even return an equivalent benefit to its area, you are advocating a destruction of value. The only value I might ever get from that bridge is after I become world dictator, when I could get a certain measure of ironic satisfaction from ordering its architects and backers to be thrown off of it.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  63. @ Patricia, #28:

    Each state does have its own road system. You do realize that, right? It will become obvious if you drive across the country…which you can do without ONCE getting on an interstate or federal highway.

    And Gabriel’s comment @ #30 is more on point than you realize. We are not the Collective Provinces of America, but the United States. That’s not just a phrase; it implies that each state has a measure of sovereignty. If your argument is that some things (like transportation systems) just can’t be done here in the U.S. without centralization, then why shouldn’t the UN take over the whole world’s transportation systems? If you are right, it would be much more efficient than every country handling their own. I mean, my gosh, how else will the Americans and Canadians ever manage to link up their roads, much less handle rail and air traffic between their countries? Although, it seems to me that they’re doing just fine…

    As for your contention that “government does have a role”…of course they do. They’re the people who take your money to pay for Amtrak, which may well be the worst, least convenient, and most inefficient rail system in any First-World country. They’re the people who take your money to pay for the TSA, which violates your civil liberties every time you fly while not doing one constructive thing to actually provide meaningful security for transportation, which is the stated goal of the agency. (In fact, it’s in the frickin’ name.) And they’re the people who take your money to put in a big road fund, and then threaten not to give it back to you unless you follow federal mandates that they otherwise would not have the power to enact or enforce — which, just to pick an example, is the only reason why every state in America has 21 as its drinking age. All of these “benefits,” and more, are yours absolutely free! Except, you know, that you actually pay taxes for all of them, so they’re not free at all.

    So yes, government has a role. But if I were you, I’d think very carefully about what that role is…because from my perspective, that role seems to be largely based around using your money and your power to further enforce their will on the American people. That’s not really a good thing if you’re a conservative.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  64. all the infrastructure in the world won’t help if Mr. Trump’s freaky deaky stripper daughter does the climate change hoax all up in it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  65. narciso,

    I think Rush has mentioned and is a friend of a professor named Thomas Hazlett, who specializes in the economics of broadcasting, not Henry Hazlitt.

    DRJ (15874d)

  66. Rush credited his good friend Tom Hazlett with coining the term Feminazi.

    DRJ (15874d)

  67. Demosthenes- your “you’re not the boss of me” spoiled brat conservatism has always been just talk, i.e., conservatives never govern that way, and now it’s dead even among its foremost practitioners, e.g. Limbaugh. You can’t run a country, Ford Motor, or the NYT without governance, which is all I said. Your ethos is found only in hippie communes, which quickly fail and generally stink.

    Creepy dude (72f9c5)

  68. Sean, many conservatives are troubled by this program. Even Sarah Palin, Patterico, and most commenters here.

    Patricia (5fc097) — 12/5/2016 @ 7:39 pm

    No doubt about that Patricia; however, outside of those you mentioned, who exactly on the right is calling out Trump for this insanity versus how many on the right are trying to sell this or explain it to the masses as a populist political win? I mentioned this in a previous comment, but how long are we to wait until it’s acceptable for those that once championed small government turn their guns away from #NeverTrumpers towards the President-Elect?

    Sean (236e4c)

  69. Lately I’ve been consistently reminded of one of my favorite lines in Federalist #51:

    “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” – James Madison

    We seem to take Madison seriously about his first point on government, but we tend to abdicate the second.

    Sean (236e4c)

  70. It is disappointing that more leaders aren’t speaking out to queston Trump’s statements and actions. I don’t know whether it’s because they are taking a wait-and-see attitude (like some commenters here), or because they aren’t really conservatives (if so, at least now we know), or if it’s because they are afraid of backlash from Trump or his supporters (which, based on my experience here, is a reasonable fear).

    DRJ (15874d)

  71. IMO there are many conservatives left. We’ve forgotten why a conservative, capitalist Republic works. We’ve embraced big government for too long, or maybe we want the easy way out by trusting a larger-than-life figure who promises us more than he can deliver.

    Perhaps big government with an authoritarian leader will work for the first time in history. Or we may have to learn the hard way, like the Communists and Socialists, that self-government requires virtue, principles, and sacrifice.

    DRJ (15874d)

  72. CORRECTION: I meant to say there aren’t many conservatives left. Big difference.

    DRJ (15874d)

  73. For every simple principle, there’s usually a lot of elaboration to be added to it. Government-funded projects may produce economic activity, but it doesn’t bring value into the system. It just creates a little eddy in the currency flow that loses some of its value in the process. Only private enterprise brings in new cash value. BTW, I woke up this morning and Redstate was gone. Rough day.

    M Patterson (7d4d4d)

  74. “YOU’RE GETTING TO BE A HABIT WITH ME: Tucker Carlson’s Nightly Takedown of Lib.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/251102/

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  75. It is disappointing that more leaders aren’t speaking out to queston Trump’s statements and actions. I don’t know whether it’s because they are taking a wait-and-see attitude (like some commenters here), or because they aren’t really conservatives (if so, at least now we know), or if it’s because they are afraid of backlash from Trump or his supporters (which, based on my experience here, is a reasonable fear).

    DRJ (15874d) — 12/6/2016 @ 6:56 am

    To a point I agree. The problem now is that for many of these issues there isn’t a “see” part of the equation. When the President-Elect takes to a public space to declare he will punish companies that choose to move facilities outside of the US, or that he is committed to a $1 Trillion stimulus plan it’s not as though those statements are cloaked in ambiguity. To adopt a “wait-and-see” attitude on those issues is like sitting in a row boat without any oars heading for a massive waterfall and saying, “this might end well, let’s wait it out.”

    We were told that people would begin holding Trump’s feet to the fire once he won the election, and now we’re being told by those same voices to wait until his actually President. However, Trump is gaining power each day and growing in his arrogance, so waiting to call him out will only end in futility if it’s decided that you can’t criticize him until after the inauguration. By then, Trump will have built a personal wall around his ego and it will be nearly impossible to talk him out of anything—of course this is all assuming he’s still open to advice now… and I have my own doubts about that.

    Sean (236e4c)

  76. #75 Colonel, our friend Tucker Carlson really seems to be enjoying his job. I was impressed with him way back in the day when he used to do CNN’s Crossfire.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  77. BTW, I woke up this morning and Redstate was gone. Rough day.

    M Patterson (7d4d4d) — 12/6/2016 @ 7:05 am

    What happened to Redstate?

    Sean (236e4c)

  78. Sean,

    A solid reason not to respond to every ‘bang the sippy cup’ by Trump is that he may not even propose a budget. If he does bother to propose a budget, it may turn out like the amazing shrinking Carrier deal.

    I don’t believe responding to tales told by an idiot on Twitter is an effective use of time by the people actually responsible for producing the necessary legislation. Establishing clear separation between Article I and Article II responsibilities is much more a matter of deeds rather than public utterance. Trump can bark as loud as he wants, he ‘s still not in charge of the caravan.

    Rick Ballard (d17095)

  79. Fake news from collender, attribution how does it work

    narciso (d1f714)

  80. Narciso,

    Where is his OMB director pick? Is he going to scribble out a trillion dollar spending proposal with his own stubby fingers?

    Rick Ballard (d17095)

  81. Sean,

    A solid reason not to respond to every ‘bang the sippy cup’ by Trump is that he may not even propose a budget. If he does bother to propose a budget, it may turn out like the amazing shrinking Carrier deal.

    I don’t believe responding to tales told by an idiot on Twitter is an effective use of time by the people actually responsible for producing the necessary legislation. Establishing clear separation between Article I and Article II responsibilities is much more a matter of deeds rather than public utterance. Trump can bark as loud as he wants, he ‘s still not in charge of the caravan.

    Rick Ballard (d17095) — 12/6/2016 @ 8:20 am

    Ignoring the bully pulpit is risky given the cult of personality Trump has amassed. Too many people in the country have taken him seriously, and few literally. To ignore his statements as bluster in order to work on legislation can become an issue of optics with his fan base. If you’re seen working towards issues and compromises that benefit the country and follow our founding principles, but run counter to his Tweets (can’t believe that will be a thing), you’ll be branded a traitor to “the cause.” We’ve already seen a small sample of that attitude during the primary and the general campaign, and there is no evidence to suggest his loyal followers will treat his Presidency any different.

    Sean (41ed1e)

  82. We shall see, Sean, lets see what actually happens before going defcon one.

    narciso (d1f714)

  83. 54. BobStewartatHome (822f64) — 12/5/2016 @ 7:38 pm

    I expect that when a demagogue says he’s going to increase Federal spending on infrastructure, what he’s really saying is that he will grease the wheels for more local projects. This, of course, means nothing will happen very soon, as Obama learned to his surprise.

    It didn’t surprise me. It didn’t even surrpise me that the politicians didn’t know about this, bcause it was never mentioned anywhere, and because I have somewhat low expectations for them. But they really should have known.

    Things have changed since the 1930s, particularly after 1970.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  84. Sean,

    I certainly would not argue that Trump fanbois are not capable of the same type of collective destructive idiocy demonstrated by BLM. I don’t see even the rudiments of the structural organization (Soros/Obama/OFA) required but I don’t deny the possibility of one being developed. I’m curious as to how the dispersion/concentration problem would be overcome though. What would take the place of the plantation and college campus locii used to generate the illusion of support and importance generated by Soros/Obama paid cadre?

    Rick Ballard (d17095)

  85. He has a very heterogeneous coalition to satisfy , value voters in the south, industrial workers in the midwest, white collar workers in the north east, that’s more interest than ideology based, and there are overlaps

    narciso (d1f714)

  86. Sean,

    I certainly would not argue that Trump fanbois are not capable of the same type of collective destructive idiocy demonstrated by BLM. I don’t see even the rudiments of the structural organization (Soros/Obama/OFA) required but I don’t deny the possibility of one being developed. I’m curious as to how the dispersion/concentration problem would be overcome though. What would take the place of the plantation and college campus locii used to generate the illusion of support and importance generated by Soros/Obama paid cadre?

    Rick Ballard (d17095) — 12/6/2016 @ 9:43 am

    The structural organization can be found at places like Breitbart and other alt-right enclaves across the internet. Those groups are already pushing their own fake news and it’s been successful at pushing agendas (see the “Trump claims 3 million illegals voted” story for an example). These groups will work to destroy any perceived opposition, or at the very least work to ruin the person’s reputation (see Megyn Kelly), just like the left does whenever someone is perceived as being against their religious-esque beliefs of diversity (see Chip and Joanna Gains).

    Sean (1d5074)

  87. Alt-right Schmalt-right that’s the language of the loser far-left

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  88. “Yes, it’s absolutely awful that about 200 white nationalist guys – or maybe 199 guys and former reality television star Tila Tequila – got together at a Washington D.C. convention center, give Nazi salutes, yelled “Hail Trump!” and generally made asses of themselves.

    Then again, it’s about 200 attendees, according to USA Today. The Washington, D.C. metro area has about 6 million people.

    It is not that hard to gather a couple dozen or couple hundred people together for just about any idea or concept, no matter how obscure or outlandish. About 80 Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln presenters – don’t call them “impersonators!” – gathered for their convention in Vandalia, Illinois. The white nationalists couldn’t gather as big a crowd as the 300 mermaids and mermen at “MerFest” in Cary, North Carolina last year. Of course, all of these gatherings shrink in comparison to “BronyCon”; about 7,000 grown adults attended the last convention for My Little Pony fans. (You may find that a completely different sign of the Apocalypse.)

    Yet from the headlines, you would think that this was some sort of burgeoning mass movement, marching through the streets and taking over the nation’s capital.

    The Washington Post chose the headline, “attendance rises at annual white nationalist conference in D.C.”, without any actual numbers in the article. CNN declared, “White nationalism, a term once on the fringes, now front and center.” The San Diego Union-Tribune declared, ‘Trump’s win brings ‘white pride’ out of the shadows.”

    Again, remember: about 200 guys.

    A lot of the coverage quotes the members and leaders, discussing how quickly their membership is growing and boasting of how influential they will be in the incoming Trump administration. They really seem to believe that they represent a wide swath of Americans, and that they’re coming out of the closet and many will follow. Jared Taylor, editor of a white nationalist journal, tells Vox, “I see a kind of awakening — I think we will see this in local elections. School boards, city councils, mayor, maybe Congress in certain districts,” and Vox’s correspondent concurs, “This kind of politics is on the rise in America.”

    Is it really? Or are we witnessing a confluence of media eager to spotlight something that horrifies them and white nationalists eager to believe they’re on the verge of taking over? Because right now, candidates who appeal to the adult My Little Pony fan demographic still appear to have the numeric advantage. “

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  89. Pointing that megyn was quite a spicy meatball on stern while she pretends to be so demure as Evan Rachel wood on westworld

    narciso (d1f714)

  90. Charles Johnson, a Cruz supporter originally, pointed out fields academy award winning performance and the teal reason for it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  91. Or the khan family’s curious fixation on sharia and hijra (immigration)

    narciso (d1f714)

  92. @ Creepy dude, #68:

    Don’t tell me what my “ethos” is. (Also, don’t misuse the word “ethos.”) I’m no anarchist.

    But I do know the difference between “government” and “governance,” which you clearly do not.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  93. @78

    What happened to Redstate?

    My mistake. I was getting a redirect to some other site. I cleared cookies, internet history and temp files, and it’s back, again. I thought, for a minute, that it had ceased to exist.

    M. Patterson (7d4d4d)

  94. My mistake. I was getting a redirect to some other site. I cleared cookies, internet history and temp files, and it’s back, again. I thought, for a minute, that it had ceased to exist.

    M. Patterson (7d4d4d) — 12/6/2016 @ 3:22 pm

    That would make for a rather dour morning, like waking up only to discover you’re out of coffee.

    Sean (1d5074)

  95. Sheriff Clarke when he thinks fake news, ‘hands up, don’t shoot’

    narciso (d1f714)

  96. Latest news: Donald Trump complained about the new Air Force One planes under contract, which he says just costs far too much. (Trump is familiar with private jets) He said it is going to cost $4 billion – it’s actually $3 billion plus and counting, and most of the cost is not for the basic planes. The current Boeing 747-200s are the last ones of that model flying.

    Boeing stock immediately dropped, then it recovered. The stock market often works that way – a sudden surge of selling by a small minority is not accompanied by a sudden surge of buyers until some new people take a look. Trump was thought to own Boeing stick until they told reporters, or reporters found out he quietly sold all of his stocks in June.

    He said he wants Boeing to make money, but not that much money.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/politics/trump-air-force-one-boeing.html

    But Mr. Trump did not focus on Boeing broadly. Instead, he focused on the Air Force One upgrade, telling reporters at Trump Tower, “The plane is totally out of control.”

    “It’s going to be over $4 billion for the Air Force One program, and I think it’s ridiculous,” he said. “I think Boeing is doing a little bit of a number. We want Boeing to make a lot of money, but not that much money.”

    In a statement after Mr. Trump’s Twitter post, Boeing said it had a $170 million contract to study the equipment that a redesigned Air Force One might need. That project has just gotten underway, so billions of dollars in cost overruns at this point appear to be impossible.

    “Some of the statistics that have been, uh, cited, shall we say, don’t appear to reflect the nature of the financial agreement between Boeing and the Department of Defense,” the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said.

    Air Force officials said they were proposing to spend $2.7 billion over the next five years to research, develop and test communications technologies and other advanced systems. The Air Force would then buy two 747-8 aircraft, which normally cost airlines $350 million to $400 million apiece, and refit them to include all the new systems and handle extra weight.

    Is this for show, or what? You could complain the research and development costs far too much. ($2.7 billion) The only contract so far is $170 million to study the equipment that a redesigned Air Force One might need.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  97. i blame nasty geriatric creepshow harrison ford

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  98. Clarke may be spot on in blackish matters, but he’s out of depth and reading boilerplate on immigration. The dairy mafia would have locked him in an abbatoir and SW Milwaukee would be Potsie’s and Ralph’s as though nothing happened.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  99. Depending on how things work, each bridge job created might create a new private job, or two.

    Bad argument. And those jobs that were NOT created because the $10 million was instead used for the bridge will NOT indirectly create further jobs. The money that would have filtered into the economy by that route instead goes via the bridge construction. You can’t argue they bridge jobs would have had further additional economic effect while simultaneously claims those jobs aborted due to funding being taken by the government would NOT have had any additional effects. This is another example of a failure to imagine what would have been done were that money left in the hands of the taxpayers.

    Darren M. (a4eb00)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1150 secs.