When two political giants who have spent their careers trashing each other and disagreeing on pretty much every issue imaginable start harmonizing lovingly about policy solutions, it’s time to pay attention. In this case, the songbirds were Newt Gingrich and Dick Gephardt. Both are out of office now (though Newt is still thinking about a presidential run in 2012), but for much of the 90s, they led their respective parties in the House of Representatives.
What they agree about is infrastructure investment. At a panel discussion organized by Building America’s Future before the holidays (we don’t always keep to blogtime here at the Infrastructurist), Gingrich outlined an 8-point plan for totally overhauling how the country accounts for and spends money on public works. Gephardt, a classic pro-union Democratic, listened to the presentation and declared–with no small note of surprise–that he agreed “100 percent” with the arch conservative Gingrich’s plan, speaking with such glowing enthusiasm that it seemed like he might lean over and give the snowy-haired right-wing icon a big kiss.
Gingrich’s plan, in profoundly condensed form:
* Rewrite the Budget Act. It’s obsolete. It’s a terrible idea to pay for big projects instead of drips and drops instead of all at once (as we would do, say, with an aircraft carrier). We could build the next generation air traffic control system in 3-4 yrs instead of twenty. So we would reduce airline fuel use by 10 percent and see congestion decline at the nations busiest airports immediately with massive benefits of all sorts.
* Fund megaprojects that “arouse the nation.” (No giggling.) So, for instance, let’s build a maglev line between DC and Boston, one between San Diego and San Fran, and another connect the big cities of Florida. Let’s not accept the watered down standard of 110 miles per hour as high speed rail. That’s “medium speed,” not “high speed.”
* Dispatch with much of the regulatory bureaucracy.
* Involve and incentive private capital where ever possible to invest in infrastructure.
* Shift to user fees rather than taxes – that is, start tolling drivers more aggressively.
* Learn the lessons of incompetence – e.g. from fiascoes like the Big Dig. But likewise learn lessons from projects that went well, like the Salt Lake City highway rebuilding prior to the Olympics.
* Rethink and remake our electrical grid
* Invest in energy infrastructure on same scale as transportation infrastructure.
Whether or not one agrees on all the fine points, it seems that in the real world we’ve transcended the ideological divide on a lot of this stuff. Now it’s just time to move.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Why maglev? Seriously…why?
Because it tickles your fancy? Because you like the idea of floating? Are you all so overcome with giddyness at the ridiculous futurist dream that you can’t understand that maglev doesn’t make sense at all?
It costs way too much, and doesn’t provide ANY benefit over steel on steel. There shouldn’t be any questions after that…you are a retard if you think you can rationalize maglevs in any way at all.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Danny,
Chill. Seriously. I don’t know who the “you” is here, but the context of the piece makes perfectly clear whose views these are. If Newt Gingrich wants to argue for maglev, let him. Don’t be the kind of person who wrecks the debate.
-Jebediah
July 7th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
cant say i am a fan of gingrich but his plan sounds pretty good to me. i’m glad to hear him in support of rail and willing to spend on infrastructure. so many times conservatives paint out any and all government spending as a waste of taxpayer dollars, so i’m glad to see him look beyond this rhetoric. if we want to remain the most prosperous nation in the world we have to be willing to invest in infrastructure.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
At the risk of sounding cliche, “make no small plans…” I completely agree with this mindset. Lets get it done and do it quickly. If you drag your feet and incrementally do it over time there is a chance of these mega projects being obsolete by the time they’re finally completed (especially something like air travel).
July 8th, 2009 at 9:18 am
They ain’t never building a true high speed rail line in the northeast — the one place where it actually makes sense to do so. The very enviro. rules and NIMBY-empowering laws that defeat needed highway projects are just as useful for killing needed rail projects. Your Amtrack trains will share space with Metro North trains and travel at 70 mph in perpetuity prior to their shuffle through Queens and into Penn.
Even good NY liberals in train commuting towns block train projects.
http://www.gcnews.com/news/2007/0622/Front_page/001.html
I think it’s perverse, but such is the way of the world. If you want this stuff to happen, you need to change the law and expedite taking RoWs and knocking stuff down.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:32 am
That piece on the opposition to the LIRR Third Track project is just sick. Hysterical NIMBYism at its worst. A quick look at the MTA website shows that service for reverse commuters heading out to LI from the city is poor, with just four trains between 8 and 9am. Let’s just cut the BS and say that the opposition is mortified by the idea of a flood of “those people” from the city invading the Island every morning. Sad.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
James & Eric F - have you seen what the namby-pamby NIMBYs on the SF peninsula have been saying about the California High Speed Rail project? The problem with most of my fellow liberals is that they love talking the talk but won’t walk the walk when it comes to ‘taking one for the team’. It disgusts me.