> The problem is fundamental to human organizations
I can't help but think about all the other countries who actually invest in their infrastructure and in public needs and have far better outcomes and social cohesion than the US. There's something wrong with this countries system of governance I feel.
It does seem like the US ends up with extra poor outcomes with their government.
Here in Japan, the government is surely also corrupt, with "bridges to nowhere" and construction contracts assigned on a buddy-buddy basis. But at least here that corruption still nets us well-maintained roads and top-notch train infrastructure... just arguably too much of it and at a high cost. In the US they end up with the high costs but none of the good infrastructure...
I grew up in a small village in Switzerland (Chancy, near Geneva) which also had a bad construction scandal in the (early) 70s: the village had outgrown it's "let's run the elementary school from the church in two rooms" stage, but vastly overbuilt a large school to pad some builder's pockets.
Sounds bad but the outcome is more or less as follows, if my rather vague memory (I was in said school when it opened ;), and finding summaries of local events from the 70s on the internet is not straightforward) is accurate:
* some combination of the village's mayor and/or builder went to jail
* the village residents had to pay extra taxes to cover the overbuilt school's costs
* growing up, I had a really nice school (nice play yard, lots of classroom space, dedicated gym, swimming pool with adjustable depth so regular swimming lessons, etc)
* eventually, the population of the village increased enough that the school was actually a useful size (it's more than quadrupled, from the mid 300s to ~1600, since the 70s)
It feels like somehow the failures modes of "bad government" are less bad than they could be ("at least we got something for our corruption!").
Some years ago a small rural town in Spain twinned with a similar town in Greece.
The mayor of the Greek town visited the Spanish town. When he saw the palatial mansion belonging to the Spanish mayor, he wondered aloud how on earth he could afford such a house.
The Spaniard replied: ‘You see that bridge over there? The EU gave us a grant to construct a two-lane bridge, but by building a single lane bridge with traffic lights at either end, I could build this place.’
The following year the Spaniard visited the Greek town. He was simply amazed at the Greek mayor's house: gold taps, marble floors, diamond doorknobs, it was marvellous.
When he asked how he’d raised the money to build this incredible house, the Greek mayor said: ‘You see that bridge over there?’
But it always saddens my heart that we insist on these stereotypes and hardly mention how other countries are "legally" siphoning taxpayer's money out to corporations by becoming tax havens and they're supposed to be a good example on how to handle taxpayer's money. The thing is, they're actually just better at stealing for their friends :)
I think the Japanese get more out of what they spend/sacrifice for their government than the US. That's not to imply anything approaching perfection either.
Yes, well, Japan has just about reached the limits of the "construction state". When you've built rail lines that hardly anybody uses, and when you're finished with cisterns under Tokyo that will handle thousand year floods, you need to start building aircraft carriers or you'll run out of ways to create jobs.
I think it's important to keep things in perspective. The US _does_ invest in infrastructure, but because the US is so large you may not see it going on. New bridges and road improvements have been going on around my town for at least the last 10 years nearly non-stop. There is a huge loop around town they are trying to finish, but residents are fighting the last leg because they do not want the growth. All these items are paid for with a mix of federal, state, and local tax money.
The problem is really short term vs. long term thinking. Roads and bridges give immediate photo ops and help re-election chances. Fixing the damn does very little as long as it doesn't collapse while someone is in office.
>residents are fighting the last leg because they do not want the growth
So much harm has been done in the name of somebody not wanting small changes to happen. It's another form of short term vs. long term thinking. My city has done this for the past 50 years, and now the same people who fight any development tooth-and-nail are the ones who blame the city for abandoning them over the past 50 years in terms of putting in proper infrastructure.
The result of not growing infrastructure is that growth happens (people are having children!), but without proper infrastructure.
I agree with this, but last-leg spending is actually a huge problem in the US. Not in NIMBY terms, but because there's more money available for building new roads and infrastructure than for maintaining them.
Even infrastructure bills like the one currently being proposed tend to worsen the maintenance deficit instead of improving it.
Anybody who's ever been associated with the military is familiar with this problem. The Operations and Maintenance budget is the first thing to get cut when money's tight because the effect isn't immediately obvious. You end up not being able to trust anything you haven't inspected.
I'll never forget the explanation of why the M16 was so terrible on release: it was billed as self-cleaning, which meant literally nothing except "you don't get the cleaning gear you'll need". Add in the switch to cheaper, dirtier ammo, and everyone knows how good the results were.
It's not quite the same as cutting maintenance budgets later, but it's a painful story of money going in up front without any respect for ongoing costs.
Whenever I see comparisons to European countries, I remind myself that Los Angeles to Boston is a longer drive than Lisbon to Moscow. The amount of infrastructure spending which gets poured into largely empty spaces that connect other places is shocking, and not really comparable to most other countries.
The long term v short term problem is still very real and unresolved though.
hyperbole aside, the US does invest in its infrastructure. People exaggerate the numbers considerably, example is the bridge scares because that is pushed by construction and union concerns and they know how to scare you, if not them then the teams they hire yet they don't tell you how much those numbers have fallen since the early 90s.
plus not all infrastructure items are under the domain of the federal government so those dollars cannot be applied to some needs.
the only thing wrong with this countries government is that it is incredibly large for what it delivers and if you add in state, city, and local, governments it becomes even more absurd.
> example is the bridge scares because that is pushed by construction and union concerns and they know how to scare you
The I-35 bridge collapse was a couple of miles from my apartment at the time and occurred during a significant public debate in Minnesota about infrastructure spending. There was no "scare" about bridges - just a decade of underinvesting in infrastructure despite the warnings of the DOT and engineers about the increasingly poor condition of nearly every bridge in the State and complaints about how reduced budgets meant less time inspecting infrastructure.
Our Governor at the time (Pawlenty) was a notable opponent of government spending and had made significant cutbacks due to a "no new taxes" pledge and tax cuts (he had ambitions for higher office and unsuccessfully ran for President in 2012). Obviously Pawlenty wasn't directly responsible for the bridge collapse but our current Governor (Dayton) was elected partly due to promises to repair aging infrastructure (it was a major election issue).
In the east metro the majority of overpass bridges have been replaced over the last 5 years - particularly along 35E north between 94 and 694, and 94 between St Paul and 280. The LRT line between St Paul and Minneapolis was also completed and the new Stillwater/36 bridge is nearly complete. That said, there are still claims of underinvestment (http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-s-bridges-are-still-out...) and now the bonding bill has become a contentious issue again with Republicans who are unhappy about proposed spending on public transportation and are looking to fund tax cuts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-minnesota-bonds-idUSKBN14O...
"Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton unveiled a plan on Wednesday to fund a variety of infrastructure projects "vital" to the state's future with $1.5 billion of general obligation bonds. The proposal is slightly bigger than the $1.4 billion bonding plan he proposed a year ago to the Democrat-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House. A deal failed to materialize, leaving Minnesota without annual infrastructure funding. The Democratic governor could face a tougher battle this year as Republicans control both legislative chambers after winning a one-seat majority in the Senate in the Nov. 8 election."
I believe he is leaving office soon - it'll be interesting to see if infrastructure spending continues to be influential in the election. I'm surprised no one tried to tie the recently passed Sunday liquor sales with infrastructure spending! ;)
I can't help but think about all the other countries who actually invest in their infrastructure and in public needs and have far better outcomes and social cohesion than the US. There's something wrong with this countries system of governance I feel.