I’ve heard quite a few people buy into the premise that Republicans/Conservatives will not commit to rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. That is only true if you define infrastructure spending the same as Democrats…
Here is why we are snake-bit on investments in “infrastructure”…
(Months Ago)
Democrats: Ahhhh! We’re about to go into another Great Depression! We need to spend $850 billion quick. It’ll go towards badly needed infrastructure!
Republicans: Well we certainly can’t do the Great Depression thing again, so…
Democrats: Ahhhh! What are you doing?
Republicans: Reading the bill….
Democrats: Don’t read it! Sign it! This can’t wait!
Republicans: OK, OK! Chill…
(Months Later)
Democrats: Ahhhh! We spent that $850 billion, the economy is still in the crapper, and we’ve got an election coming up! We need more of the same! This time a trillion dollars in stimulus. It’ll go towards badly needed infrastructure so it’s a win/win!
Republicans: Now hold on… what happened to the first $850 billion going towards infrastructure?
Democrats: Well, we spent it on candy, toys, and hookers… and I gave a bunch to our friends in the unions… oh and a bit of it went to that infrastructure stuff we talked about…
Republicans: I don’t think spending all this government money is going to help our situation; especially if the money doesn’t go where we say… In fact…
Democrats (and the Media): Ahhhhh! You partisan bastards, you just want us to fail so you can benefit in the next election! You would sacrifice the good of your own country for political gain. Some of that money would have gone to teachers, firemen and policemen; but noooo! You hate teachers, firemen, and policemen don’t you! And the children… you hate them too! You can’t deny it! This was our chance to work together, to compromise and rebuild the ailing roads and bridges of this country, but you can’t even do that!
Conclusion:
You want to invest in infrastructure?
Step One: Bust the unions (no union requirements to do the work)
Step Two: Put it up for bid with bonuses (and penalties) for on-time and quality
Otherwise you get stuff like the “Big Dig” in Massachusetts and/or the last “stimulus” package.
No, Republicans aren’t against investment in the rebuilding of the infrastructure of this country. We’re against pork and waste disguised and infrastructure investment; which is all the Democrats offer.
>Bust the unions (no union requirements to do the work)
Can the federal gov’t do that, legally? Can they tell a state “We won’t give you infrastructure money unless you remove union advantages that you’ve already agreed to?”
I’m not baiting you; I genuinely don’t know how that works.
>Put it up for bid with bonuses (and penalties) for on-time and quality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig#Construction_phase
It looks like a dozen private companies worked on the Big Dig, and a key problem was that the overseers were financially linked to the contractors, so their oversight was shoddy. The bad concrete was supplied by a British-owned company (Aggregate Industries)… but I don’t know if that means no local union workers, or what.
I am told that in Japan, the majority of construction sites are managed by the yakuza (mafia), under a series of private companies. Perhaps this Boston mess was the same. I remember unions being just one of the reasons I hated working in NYC; I had to pay $25/mo in dues, though I never joined, because all non-management positions at Penguin Books were under some local union that included waiters, of all people. Ugh.
I recognize the historical value of unions, but today they really just seem like a drain on the whole system. I’m not sure what the solution is. People should be legally allowed to collectively bargain… perhaps the Texas right-to-work approach is best (you can’t be punished for being in a union, or be denied work because you didn’t join a union).
>> Can the federal gov’t do that, legally? (Tell states not to use union labor)…
It’s usually the federal government telling the states they have to use union labor.
Of course the feds shouldn’t be giving the states any money for anything that doesn’t cross state lines. Let the states handle it themselves…
But in the real world where the feds take the money, take their cut, and then distribute it to the states… They shouldn’t tell the states to use or not to use union labor. Give states enough to get the job done without using inflated union labor. If the states decide to pony up more for the unions… that’s their decision. Given $100 million, Texas can build ten miles of freeway, Massachusetts can build five… it’s their decision.
>> Texas right-to-work approach is best…
It is the best decision. No man should be forced to pay anybody for the right to work. It’s just basic human decency.
AND no man (or men) should be denied the right to organize into a union. It’s basic freedom of speech and assembly under the Constitution.
BUT at the same time any owner of a company should be able to fire anyone who strikes or causes any disruption in the business. Again basic free speech, assembly, and property rights.
It’s the free market at work… If the work force is such that you can be that easily replaced, you probably don’t have much of a grievance.
I’m very pro union in a common sense non-abuse sort of way. But more than that, I’m pro property rights which is a fundamental idea (not at all common in the mid to late 1700s) that made this country great.