Tuesday, November 13 , 2018, 9:07 pm | Fair 53º

 
 
 
 

Veronique de Rugy: The Right Way to Boost Infrastructure Spending

As part of its "Infrastructure Week," the Trump administration is holding infrastructure-themed events around the country this week to promote $1 trillion of private and public infrastructure investment.

Based on the 2018 budget outline, we know that the administration intends to seriously streamline the permit process, reduce regulatory barriers and encourage private investment.

However, lost in the debate is the fact that the private sector is already the biggest player in the infrastructure sandbox; all the federal government needs to do is get out of the way.

A little-known fact is that the private sector already owns and finances most of the nondefense infrastructure. A new paper by Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute — called "Who Owns U.S. Infrastructure?" — breaks it down in great detail.

Edwards writes, "In 2015, private infrastructure assets of $40.7 trillion were four times larger than state and local assets of $10.1 trillion, and 27 times larger than federal assets of $1.5 trillion, according to the (Bureau of Economic Analysis) data."

Also, 94 percent of the $3.5 trillion of funding in 2016 came from the private sector and state and local governments.

Looking at infrastructure assets owned by the government tells the same story. The federal government owns 13 percent of the assets, leaving the rest to state and local governments.

For instance, Edwards documents that state and local governments "own 98 percent of highways and streets, including the entire interstate highway system. They own schools, water and sewer systems, police and fire stations, and transit systems."

Though the federal government owns relatively little infrastructure, its policies have an oversize impact on what investments and decisions state and local governments and the private sector make.

As Edwards puts it, "the federal government is the tail that wags the dog on the nation's infrastructure — and not in a good way."

Federal laws and regulations increase the cost of building infrastructure and reduce the return on infrastructure investments, but they also distort the flow of capital investments made by the private sector and state and local governments.

Today it takes highway project managers more than six years to actually begin construction, as they must go through myriad environmental reviews, obtain all the required permits and subject themselves to all the relevant laws and executive orders.

Federal financing is bungled, too. It makes little sense for the federal government to take tax money from people in the states, run it through the federal bureaucracy and then send the money back to the states in the form of politically contrived formulas. That is how the current gas tax system works.

Instead, state policymakers who believe that their state needs more money for transportation projects should make the case to their constituents that taxes should be increased to fund such endeavors. Allowing the states to reassume responsibility for infrastructure policy would encourage innovation and competition.

For all these reasons, the idea of a national plan to boost infrastructure is bunk.

Even if it took the form of fully paid projects, which is never the case, it would amount to massive federal interference in state, local and private affairs despite the pile of evidence that federal employees are unable to make better choices than those who actually own the assets.

Delegating the financing and decision-making to the states is the way to go, along with lowering other barriers for infrastructure investments. To the extent that the Trump plan delivers on that front, it would be an improvement over the status quo.

But it could help by implementing another policy promise: a large cut to the corporate income tax rate and other business tax reforms. Rate reductions would lower the price of capital, which leads to a significant increase in the private capital stock, encouraging decentralized and private investments, some of which include infrastructure.

Allowing full capital expensing would also increase returns for infrastructure investment. And repealing the tax exemption on municipal bond interest would remove the penalty against private investment.

Capital increases also increase the productivity of labor and wages. So there's something to like for everyone.

To the extent that the administration wants to boost the economy with infrastructure projects, that's the way to do it, because simply spending more money won't.

— Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a columnist for Reason magazine and the Washington Examiner, and blogs about ecomomics for National Review. Click here to contact her, and follow her on Twitter: @veroderugy. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.