Obama Should Commit to a Trillion-Dollar Infrastructure Plan

[Igel]

72. Nothing to prevent it from being done locally.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Lawmakers-find-way-to-transportation-deal-4690105.php?cmpid=houtexhcat

That's the transportation infrastructure measure, and it's what the TX legislature's been arguing over since what the rest of the country cared about was passed. One of the three reasons for the special session I, special session II, and if it flubs again, special session III.

It's been discussed since January of this year. Some real conservatives want the money saved instead of spent. A lot of Democrats want the money spent for other things--or tried to hold the transportation money hostage until it got other spending. Looks like it'll go to a referendum, but in 2014.

That's after a lot of nonsense in previous years. Why, the bastards wanted transportation spending to be reserved for transportation. (Some money is, or at least was, reserved for transportation beautification. Those nice state symbols, flowers, and trees that show up along highway ramps. Big state, all those little niceties add up to a project or two.)

There's already a $2 billion water infrastructure measure on the ballot for 2013, so maybe the postponement's a good idea.

What makes it more tempting when done federally is that it can easily appear that people are getting more than they paid for. That's true in some states. Not true in others. Problem is that federal infrastructure spending serves the needs of the federal-level politicians. I-10 in the middle of nowhere would get little funding; the I-95 corridor would get more.