|
We heard more and more from President Biden about kick starting the economy by committing to rebuilding our old and failing
Infrastructure. Using Wikipedia's description of Infrastructure ..infrastructure refers to structures, systems, and facilities
serving a country, city, or area, including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function. It typically
characterizes technical structures such as roads, bridges, tunnels, fresh water supply and supply systems, sewers and sewage
systems, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated
systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions" Let us
hope that President Trump actually moves forward with these projects and help pay for the improvements with the plan proposed
below.
But, let us look at the United States "Infrastructure" piece by piece:
Bridges and Tunnels
States can repair, replace and build bridges and tunnels much more efficiently than the Federal Government. Granted it
takes money to repair, replace and build bridges and tunnels and that money can come from a State and/or from the Federal
Government. BUT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE STUDY, EVALUATION, DESIGN AND/OR CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES
AND TUNNELS! THE STATES CAN DO IT BETTER AND LESS EXPENSIVELY.
Fresh Water Supply and Supply Systems
This is usually a function of States, Counties (Parishes) or Cities. Since almost all fresh water supply systems are
used on a local level, historically those are the entities that design, install, pay for and operate those systems. States,
Counties (Parishes) or Cities can also best repair and replace fresh water system much more efficiently than the Federal Government.
Granted it takes money to repair, replace and build these systems and that money can come from a State and/or from the Federal
Government. BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE FUNDING, STUDY, EVALUATION, DESIGN AND/OR
CONSTRUCTION OF WATER SYSTEMS! LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN DO IT BETTER AND LESS EXPENSIVELY BY ISSUING LOCAL BONDS.
Sewers and Sewage Systems
This is usually a function of Counties (Parishes) or Cities. Since almost all sewer and sewage systems are used on a
local level, historically those are the entities that design, install, pay for and operate those systems. Counties (Parishes)
or Cities can also best repair and replace fresh water system much more efficiently than the State or Federal Government.
Granted it takes money to repair, replace and build these systems and that money can come from a Counties (Parishes) or
Cities and/or State and/or from the Federal Government. BUT, WE BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED
IN THE FUNDING, STUDY, EVALUATION, DESIGN AND/OR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER or SEWER SYSTEMS! LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN DO IT BETTER
AND LESS EXPENSIVELY BY ISSUING LOCAL BONDS.
Airports, Rail Systems, Train Stations, and Deepwater Ports
These are usually a function of States, Counties (Parishes), Cities, case of rails, the responsibility of private, semi-private
and/or quasi-government authorities (such as Amtrak, etc.). Since Airports, Train Stations, and Deepwater Ports are used
on a local level, historically those are the entities that design, install, pay for and operate those systems. States, Counties
(Parishes) or Cities can also best expand, repair, and or replace these systems much more efficiently than the Federal Government.
Granted it takes money to expand, repair, replace and build these systems and the money needed can come from a Counties (Parishes)
or Cities and/or State and/or from the Federal Government. BUT, WE BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED
IN THE FUNDING, STUDY, EVALUATION, DESIGN AND/OR CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSPORT RELATED SYSTEMS! LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN DO IT BETTER
AND LESS EXPENSIVELY BY ISSUING LOCAL BONDS.
United States Air Traffic Control System
This is a major infrastructure system that does fall under federal government responsibility. The existing system is archaic
requiring most air traffic over the US to take place in 'lanes' so controllers can more easily track and guide aircraft avoidance
using radar. It is time to bring a new system into service using GPS and other existing technologies that will let aircraft
use the most direct, but safe, routes of travel. This will not only ease the existing 'paper' tracking headaches of the human
controllers, but allow much more efficient routing of aircraft. But, as in other instances, there must be a way to provide
funds for the new system that uses an equitable funding source. I believe that this would best and most equitably be accomplished
by each aircraft paying a small usage fee for each 100 miles flown.
Electrical Grids and Telecommunications Systems
These systems have generally been designed, owned, financed, built, expanded and operated by private enterprises or utility
districts. SO, WHY WOULD WE WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN ELECTRICAL GRIDS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS? LOCALLY
OWNED AND OPERATED ENTERPRISES, PRIVATE COMPANIES AND COOPS ETC. CAN DO IT BETTER AND LESS EXPENSIVELY.
Obviously, there are other infrastructure items like railroads, satellite systems, space launch and support systems, etc.,
but these, like most rail systems, are increasingly run by private companies, public-private consortiums, In short, I am not
sure what any politician is talking about when they says they is going to spend money to revitalize our infrastructure. Any
infrastructure system is best managed at the most local level possible. One other thing that might qualify for a national
infrastructure project would be the wall at the southern border between the US and Mexico, although I believe that the border
states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California should probably actually run the project in their state. It may be a
good idea to finance the major highway systems, like Interstates and US Highways, etc., through the federal government, and
then send that money collected back to the States for use on an apportioned basis. For road, bridges and tunnels, etc. we
have a plan for providing such funding as discussed below. In short, the Federal Government has little to do with our national
infrastructure except to possibly supply some funding.
Infrastructure Funding Initiative:
Roads, Bridges, and Tunnel etc. are infrastructure used by motor vehicles. We believe the plan we proposed over ten years
ago (described below) as a primarily energy reduction program would actually be a very fair and efficient means to finance
this part of the Roads, Bridges, and Tunnels etc. infrastructure rebuilding initiative. What better way to apportion the
costs of maintaining Roads, Bridges, and Tunnels etc. infrastructure than to have a fee based on usage by vehicles that use
the infrastructure? And, please don't stop reading on the first bullet, but read the whole program before you throw the idea
out, because we cannot make the required upgrades without some means to fund the upgrades.
A new national motor fuel surcharge of $1.00/gallon on all over the road gasoline and diesel will be implemented. In 2023
the US is estimated to have consumed over 177 billion gallons of motor fuels (gasoline & diesel) for over the road transportation,
down from the record of over 200 billion in 2018. At $1/gallon, the first year would provide $177 billion dollars to fund
these infrastructure programs. Where do the 'Infrastructure/Vehicle Efficiency Incentive Funds' go?
> Initially, 50% of the funds would go to the states for use on roadway infrastructure for highway construction and/or
maintenance in the "Infrastructure Fund"
> If a state issues drivers licenses or identification cards to immigrants who are not legally registered and/or approved,
that state loses all funding from this program
> And, up to 50% of the funds would go for funding the Vehicle Efficiency Incentive Fund
If all 50% of the funds are not needed for Vehicle Efficiency Incentive Fund any surplus would also be sent back to that
state.
The 'Infrastructure/Vehicle Efficiency Incentive Fund' will be managed by a private accounting/financial firm, determined
via bid, and not run through the US Federal Treasury. It will be a 'Lock Box' of sorts and not put into the US Treasury where
it could easily be used by politicians for 'other purposes'
*The 'Infrastructure/Vehicle Efficiency Incentive Fund' will be funded by:
> Gasoline/diesel motor fuel surcharges on all over the road vehicle fuels
> Vehicle purchase surcharges, based on vehicle efficiency
The 'Infrastructure/Vehicle Efficiency Incentive Fund' and fees will be rebalanced every year after the first 3 years
to be cost neutral, probably meaning that after a period of time, the fuel surcharge will be adjusted
Initial Efficiency Guidelines - based on government certified combined efficiency of the new vehicle in miles/gallon (MPG)
when purchased:
- 10.00 or less MPG - pay $10,000 surcharge.
- 10.01 15.0 MPG - pay $7,500 surcharge.
- 15.01 20.0 MPG - pay $4,000 surcharge.
- 20.01 25.0 MPG - pay $2,500 surcharge.
- 25.01 30.0 MPG - pay $1,500 surcharge.
- 30.01 35.0 MPG - pay $500 surcharge.
- 35.01 40.0 MPG - target range, so, no payments or rebate
- 40.01 45.0 MPG - receive a $3,000 cash rebate.
- 45.01 50.0 MPG - receive a $6,000 cash rebate.
- 50.01 60.0 MPG - receive a $10,000 cash rebate.
- 60.01 or more MPG - receive a $15,000 cash rebate.
·
Vehicles covered in the rebate/surcharge purchase price program:
- Passenger cars
- Trucks and SUVs weighing less than 9,000 pounds
Each taxpayer will be eligible for one cash vehicle efficiency rebate every 4 years, credited at the time of purchase
and can have no more than one available at any time
For leased vehicles, the rebates do not apply, however the surcharges do apply, and must be paid at the time of lease.
The program provides DIRECTLY PAID REBATES, NOT TAX DEDUCTIONS!
|
