6 ms·

> Nobody likes state run agencies and everyone loves defunding them. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Ever since Saint Reagan said, "Government isn't t

> Nobody likes state run agencies and everyone loves defunding them. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Ever since Saint Reagan said, "Government isn't the solution to our problem; government is the problem," people believe that any sort of dedicated government oversight is "bad." But the reality is, unless you carve out an agency/committee/trust to manage long-term projects, the oversight for it falls to the whims of whoever happens to be in office at the time.

dcolkitt 7y ago
I think you need to understand this from the perspective of those of us who lean fiscally conservative. Large government projects like The Big Dig and Second Avenue Subway have a history in this country of being horribly mismanaged and wasting enormous amounts of money. And you're basically arguing that this augurs that we should be funding these projects more not less. Analogously imagine you have a relative who gets sloppy drunk and wreaks havoc every time he's around alcohol. Then he makes the argument that it's because he doesn't have enough alcohol. That maybe if he had a constant secure supply he wouldn't feel the need to binge every time he gets his hand on a bottle of vodka. I'm not saying that your argument is wrong. But poorly run government projects prima facie justify less government spending not more. If you want to make the case that it's the opposite, there's a pretty high burden of proof.
- acollins1331 7y ago
  No, the idea is that you actually need to properly fund and train the people overseeing the projects. Fiscal conservatives have been understaffing executive offices for years and then point at them when they fail. The DMV wouldn't suck if they just gave a bit more money and hired more people, but it will suck forever because everyone thinks it just sucks because Lol government sucks.
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    Exactly. Underfunding agencies and programs, then blaming them when they inevitably fail and using that failure as an argument to push for privatization has been the Republican modus operandi for several decades now.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The US spends more per unit of service almost every public sector program than European countries. Overall, our non-military government spending per person is actually slightly more than Canada’s. At the local level, it costs NYC twice as much per passenger mile to operate almost an identical subway system to London’s. Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. Baltimore hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1967. The city council hasn’t had a republican since 1942. Where can I find a republican to blame for the fact that it’s infrastructure is a disaster? San Francisco hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1964, has just a single republican in city-wide elected office, and the entire Bay Area currently has no republican representatives in either the state legislature or the Congress. DC has never had a republican mayor. These places should have great public services, right? If not transit (where Democrats sometimes have to share power with republicans at the state level) but schools, local public services, etc., should be fantastic and well funded, right?
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      >Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. What metric are you using to make this claim? I don’t even know of any non liberal cities. And whatever their faults may be, liberal cities and states are more desirable to live in or near, based on price data.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Rich people tend to congregate in blue cities and states, but on the whole they suffer from massive domestic out-migration (more residents leaving for other states than residents of other states coming there). New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois are all losing large numbers of residents to other states: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4616-1136-852.png https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4.... > I don’t even know of any non liberal cities. Phoenix, Arizona, the fastest growing large city in the U.S. As to states, the 10 most popular governors currently are all republicans, while 7 of the 10 least popular are democrats: https://freebeacon.com/politics/10-most-popular-governors-in-country-are-republicans https://freebeacon.com/politics/10-most-popular-governors-in.... This is not really a broad political point, but a very narrow response to the idea that infrastructure and public services suck in the U.S. "because republicans." When you live in a city like New York, DC, or SF, where 80% of people vote for the democratic candidate year-after-year, you can't really blame Reagan for the fact that the schools suck, the transit is falling apart, etc.
- jetpks 7y ago
  You're arguing that Americans are fundamentally incompetent and unable to govern themselves.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Americans are fundamentally incompetent and unable to govern themselves. People keep blaming “Reagan” but it’s blue cities and states where infrastructure projects fail spectacularly. The Second Avenue subway was built in New York not Montana. The California HSR was in California not Texas. These projects are not underfunded. They’re funded more heavily than comparable projects in Europe. They’re also not undertaken by small organizations on shoestring budgets. The NY MTA has a surplus of highly competent career administrators and engineers.
    - majormajor 7y ago
      > The NY MTA has a surplus of highly competent career administrators and engineers. Does it? Or are the competent administrators (and engineers, but particularly the administrators - managing big projects is hard!) all getting paid bank at the most lucrative private companies? If you want transparency and cost effectiveness and speed you need some really fucking good management.
  - true_religion 7y ago
    I wouldn’t argue that. Other countries have similar issues, but either are politically inclined to ignore them Like many west African nations, or simply power through the issue via the strength of their economy like the European powers.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  And before anyone says that the big dig was a success because it made traffic suck less and the waterfront got rich... Anything they did would have made traffic suck less. With the influx of rich people back into the cities in the late 90s the waterfront was gonna get rich no matter what they did. With the benefit of hindsight it seems clear that the original 1950s/60s plans (themselves adaptation of 1940s plans) for expanding the highway and subway systems should have been followed (in no particular order so long as it all got done) and they should have tossed in a beltway line (so that literally everyone who needs to get across the city doesn't need to go downtown to do it) of some sort. They had a plan and they didn't follow it. They basically assembled 80% of the puzzle and then left it. That's why none of the major road/rail arteries in Boston link up in a sensible manner. IMO had Boston and the state not shot itself in the foot by repeatedly neutering its transit plans throughout the 20th century (killing I695, not pursuing the North/South station connector, making the silver line a bus line instead of a proper subway, the list goes on) it could have been as economically developed as the DMV area or the NYC/NJ area. Don't get me wrong, it's nice that the highway is below ground but it has its costs. Literally an entire generation of people grew up not knowing what regular infrastructure maintenance and upgrades looked like because the state was pouring all that money into a bunch of holes under Boston. It was not worth the cost. Given the choice of two ugly highways in downtown Boston bundled with any one of the planned subway developments (maybe the North/South station connector) or what we have today the choice is obvious.
- almost_usual 7y ago
  Any large infrastructure project isn't going to be done by a single private organization. It is way too big of a gamble, it has to be funded and overseen by the United States government. The only reason a transcontinental railway was built in the U.S was because of government subsidies. These subsidies were competed over by Union Pacific and Central Pacific, whoever built the most rail first got the most land grants and cash. You could argue that the quality was low because of the initiative but it was iterated on and improved over time.
  - ryacko 7y ago
    Private organizations build the infrastructure behind the internet, but that’s because it is simpler than other infrastructural systems. Ultimately people have finite time, and the people responsible for oversight should be those who benefit the most from the project coming under budget and on time.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  So I also lean fiscally conservative, but as I read the argument, it's not that more money should be thrown after bad projects, it's that "if you're going to do something, do it right". Hire people who know what they're doing, pay them well, and give them time horizons long enough to actually complete the projects instead of thrashing about as a new politician comes into office. I'd actually agree with that - I think the government should do fewer things, but do them better. Infrastructure is one of those things where there's a good economic reason why the government needs to do it (privately-funded infrastructure tends to run into tragedy-of-the-commons and diffused responsibility problems), so if responsibility for infrastructure is going to rest with the government, they might as well get it right.

dcolkitt 7y ago

I think you need to understand this from the perspective of those of us who lean fiscally conservative. Large government projects like The Big Dig and Second Avenue Subway have a history in this country of being horribly mismanaged and wasting enormous amounts of money. And you're basically arguing that this augurs that we should be funding these projects more not less. Analogously imagine you have a relative who gets sloppy drunk and wreaks havoc every time he's around alcohol. Then he makes the argument that it's because he doesn't have enough alcohol. That maybe if he had a constant secure supply he wouldn't feel the need to binge every time he gets his hand on a bottle of vodka. I'm not saying that your argument is wrong. But poorly run government projects prima facie justify less government spending not more. If you want to make the case that it's the opposite, there's a pretty high burden of proof.

acollins1331 7y ago
No, the idea is that you actually need to properly fund and train the people overseeing the projects. Fiscal conservatives have been understaffing executive offices for years and then point at them when they fail. The DMV wouldn't suck if they just gave a bit more money and hired more people, but it will suck forever because everyone thinks it just sucks because Lol government sucks.
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  Exactly. Underfunding agencies and programs, then blaming them when they inevitably fail and using that failure as an argument to push for privatization has been the Republican modus operandi for several decades now.
- rayiner 7y ago
  The US spends more per unit of service almost every public sector program than European countries. Overall, our non-military government spending per person is actually slightly more than Canada’s. At the local level, it costs NYC twice as much per passenger mile to operate almost an identical subway system to London’s. Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. Baltimore hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1967. The city council hasn’t had a republican since 1942. Where can I find a republican to blame for the fact that it’s infrastructure is a disaster? San Francisco hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1964, has just a single republican in city-wide elected office, and the entire Bay Area currently has no republican representatives in either the state legislature or the Congress. DC has never had a republican mayor. These places should have great public services, right? If not transit (where Democrats sometimes have to share power with republicans at the state level) but schools, local public services, etc., should be fantastic and well funded, right?
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    >Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. What metric are you using to make this claim? I don’t even know of any non liberal cities. And whatever their faults may be, liberal cities and states are more desirable to live in or near, based on price data.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Rich people tend to congregate in blue cities and states, but on the whole they suffer from massive domestic out-migration (more residents leaving for other states than residents of other states coming there). New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois are all losing large numbers of residents to other states: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4616-1136-852.png https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4.... > I don’t even know of any non liberal cities. Phoenix, Arizona, the fastest growing large city in the U.S. As to states, the 10 most popular governors currently are all republicans, while 7 of the 10 least popular are democrats: https://freebeacon.com/politics/10-most-popular-governors-in-country-are-republicans https://freebeacon.com/politics/10-most-popular-governors-in.... This is not really a broad political point, but a very narrow response to the idea that infrastructure and public services suck in the U.S. "because republicans." When you live in a city like New York, DC, or SF, where 80% of people vote for the democratic candidate year-after-year, you can't really blame Reagan for the fact that the schools suck, the transit is falling apart, etc.
jetpks 7y ago
You're arguing that Americans are fundamentally incompetent and unable to govern themselves.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Americans are fundamentally incompetent and unable to govern themselves. People keep blaming “Reagan” but it’s blue cities and states where infrastructure projects fail spectacularly. The Second Avenue subway was built in New York not Montana. The California HSR was in California not Texas. These projects are not underfunded. They’re funded more heavily than comparable projects in Europe. They’re also not undertaken by small organizations on shoestring budgets. The NY MTA has a surplus of highly competent career administrators and engineers.
  - majormajor 7y ago
    > The NY MTA has a surplus of highly competent career administrators and engineers. Does it? Or are the competent administrators (and engineers, but particularly the administrators - managing big projects is hard!) all getting paid bank at the most lucrative private companies? If you want transparency and cost effectiveness and speed you need some really fucking good management.
- true_religion 7y ago
  I wouldn’t argue that. Other countries have similar issues, but either are politically inclined to ignore them Like many west African nations, or simply power through the issue via the strength of their economy like the European powers.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
And before anyone says that the big dig was a success because it made traffic suck less and the waterfront got rich... Anything they did would have made traffic suck less. With the influx of rich people back into the cities in the late 90s the waterfront was gonna get rich no matter what they did. With the benefit of hindsight it seems clear that the original 1950s/60s plans (themselves adaptation of 1940s plans) for expanding the highway and subway systems should have been followed (in no particular order so long as it all got done) and they should have tossed in a beltway line (so that literally everyone who needs to get across the city doesn't need to go downtown to do it) of some sort. They had a plan and they didn't follow it. They basically assembled 80% of the puzzle and then left it. That's why none of the major road/rail arteries in Boston link up in a sensible manner. IMO had Boston and the state not shot itself in the foot by repeatedly neutering its transit plans throughout the 20th century (killing I695, not pursuing the North/South station connector, making the silver line a bus line instead of a proper subway, the list goes on) it could have been as economically developed as the DMV area or the NYC/NJ area. Don't get me wrong, it's nice that the highway is below ground but it has its costs. Literally an entire generation of people grew up not knowing what regular infrastructure maintenance and upgrades looked like because the state was pouring all that money into a bunch of holes under Boston. It was not worth the cost. Given the choice of two ugly highways in downtown Boston bundled with any one of the planned subway developments (maybe the North/South station connector) or what we have today the choice is obvious.
almost_usual 7y ago
Any large infrastructure project isn't going to be done by a single private organization. It is way too big of a gamble, it has to be funded and overseen by the United States government. The only reason a transcontinental railway was built in the U.S was because of government subsidies. These subsidies were competed over by Union Pacific and Central Pacific, whoever built the most rail first got the most land grants and cash. You could argue that the quality was low because of the initiative but it was iterated on and improved over time.
- ryacko 7y ago
  Private organizations build the infrastructure behind the internet, but that’s because it is simpler than other infrastructural systems. Ultimately people have finite time, and the people responsible for oversight should be those who benefit the most from the project coming under budget and on time.
nostrademons 7y ago
So I also lean fiscally conservative, but as I read the argument, it's not that more money should be thrown after bad projects, it's that "if you're going to do something, do it right". Hire people who know what they're doing, pay them well, and give them time horizons long enough to actually complete the projects instead of thrashing about as a new politician comes into office. I'd actually agree with that - I think the government should do fewer things, but do them better. Infrastructure is one of those things where there's a good economic reason why the government needs to do it (privately-funded infrastructure tends to run into tragedy-of-the-commons and diffused responsibility problems), so if responsibility for infrastructure is going to rest with the government, they might as well get it right.