AS THE ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS BY NOW, OUR PRESIDENTIAL
candidates have officially been chosen. From now until November, we
will be inundated with TV commercials, junk mail, talk show appearances, and the usual campaign rhetoric.
By the time we enter the booth to cast our vote, most of us will be
mentally exhausted, and at least some of us will still be confused by
what we have heard, or not heard, from the candidates. Ordinarily,
Even so, as I have done for the past few elections,
I have tried to determine if either candidate has any
new or practical plans to repair our deteriorating
infrastructure. By now, it is a well-established fact
that we have a problem—a problem that, according
to a 2013 report by the American Society of Civil
Engineers, would require an estimated investment
of $3.6 trillion (of which $1.6 trillion in funding
has not yet been allocated) in order for us to patch
things up by 2020. Both candidates agree on this.
Notably, they both seem to view infrastructure
spending as a vehicle for creating jobs, and the improvements themselves seem to take a back seat in the discussions. As far as the source of
the funds is concerned, neither seems to have any inclination to raise
the fuel tax—the most logical and practical approach but admittedly a
highly unpopular solution—leaving us with a huge void when it comes
time to pay the bills.
Well, what are the suggested solutions? The Republican plan is the
easiest to explain since there really is none. All that the party’s nominee
has told us is that repairing the infrastructure will be a “major priority project” and that no one can accomplish it but him. In his book
Crippled America, Donald Trump wrote, “There is nothing, absolutely
nothing, that stimulates the economy better than construction.” Citing
his track record of construction/redevelopment projects (among them
a skating rink in New York, a railyard overlooking the Hudson River,
and the old Post Office building in Washington, D.C.), he boasts that
he is the person who can “raise the money, solve the endless problems,
bring in the right people, and get it done.” Trump has indicated that
BY CLIFFORD F. LYNCH fastlane
If you don’t know where you’re
going, any road will take you there
he will put together a fund of over $500 billion
through the use of infrastructure bonds but has
offered few details on how the money would
be spent.
The Democratic strategy is much more
straightforward. It provides for a five-year program of spending $250 billion on infrastructure
and allocating another $25 billion to a national
infrastructure bank, paying for it “through
business tax reform.” The bank would leverage its funds to support an additional $225
billion in direct loans, loan guarantees, and
other credit enhancements
for those willing to invest
in infrastructure improvements. Theoretically, that
could result in total spending
of up to $500 billion.
The Democratic plan
draws on thoughts and deeds
of previous Democratic
leaders, such as Franklin
D. Roosevelt and Barack
Obama. Presumably, business tax reform will include
the Obama plan for a cash
infusion in the form of a one-time tax on overseas corporate profits, among other previously
floated ideas. Even so, this plan falls far short of
the financial mark.
I am not suggesting that even we supply chain
wonks will choose the candidate who has the
warmest and fuzziest infrastructure plan. But if
we were, I’m afraid we would be faced with two
unappealing choices: a recycled, inadequately
financed idea and a mystery plan.
Clifford F. Lynch is principal of C.F. Lynch & Associates, a provider
of logistics management advisory services, and author of Logistics
Outsourcing – A Management Guide and co-author of The Role of
Transportation in the Supply Chain. He can be reached at cliff@
cflynch.com.
