Delaney tries to tackle crumbling infrastructure

When it comes to corporate tax breaks one ordinarily thinks Republican and one would ordinarily be correct in doing so.

However, what if the corporate tax break was not part of the usual “trickle down economics” substanceless rhetoric but was actually applied directly to a specific undertaking that clearly benefited a particular community or communities?

That brings us to Democrat Congressman John Delaney of Maryland's 6th Congressional District.

Congressman Delaney has offered a plan to use corporate tax breaks in a manner that funds infrastructure development.

Congressman Delaney has stated that his plan “could create upwards of ten million construction, manufacturing and service jobs in ten years while also addressing some $3 trillion in infrastructure needs across the nation.”

According to Congressman Delaney, “rebuilding America’s infrastructure should be one of our top domestic priorities. Smart infrastructure investment is a triple bottom line for the country: 1) it boosts economic growth 2) creates good-paying jobs and 3) improves our quality of life."

Congressman Delaney has led the effort in the House to upgrade our roads, bridges, transit and water systems, airports and energy grid.

Few of us will dispute that locally, the need is great since I-81, I-270 and Metro all need major upgrades and improvements.

The Congressman is clear that “our aging infrastructure is a daily drain on the productivity of Marylanders, who are spending too much time commuting.”

After working on this issue for over four years, Congressman Delaney is convinced that the only way we can tackle this problem is to pair international tax reform with infrastructure.

This, he claims, addresses the single biggest obstacle – funding – while also solving a major problem in our tax code.

The Congressman further points out that “an estimated $2 trillion of U.S. corporate cash is overseas and companies do not repatriate their earnings back to the U.S.; they keep their profits abroad”.This, he makes clear, is “bad for the economy because it blocks economic activity here and it’s also bad for public services and our fiscal health, because its tax revenue that we don’t collect. This also encourages companies to invert and to move operations abroad."

Whether you are a conservative, a progressive or somewhere in the middle, you this is a concern.

The essence of the Congressman's plan is to lower the international tax rate but, most importantly, to direct some of that newly collected tax revenue to fund infrastructure development.

The critical element of the Congressman's plan is the creation of the American Infrastructure Fund which would be funded by this tax revenue from the collection of the corporate taxes we are not currently collecting.

This revenue would provide financing to state and local projects and, in so doing, encourage the expansion of public-private partnerships.

The expansion of public-private partnerships is critical to the plan's success because, as the Congressman continually points out, overly relying on private capital, as the Trump infrastructure plan does, “will prove to be insufficient an inadequate.”

“It’s a triple bottom line for our country” according to the Congressman: “a better tax code, more domestic investment and the jobs and growth created by more infrastructure investment.”

The Congressman's plan has received bipartisan support with over 40 Democrats and 40 Republicans cosponsoring the proposed infrastructure legislation over the last several years.

The issue now is whether having a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican White House will open up a door that might actually enable Congressman Delaney to make his vision on infrastructure development attractive to those in power since it includes both infrastructure development and tax incentives?

With a Republican controlled federal government and a plutocrat in the White House, corporate tax breaks will be a top priority. Finding a way to ensure that these tax incentives result in tangible benefits to the rest of us should be a requirement for any tax incentives and Congressman Delaney's vision seems to incorporate that concept.

In the post 2008 recession our economy can no longer tolerate “trickle down” concepts without actual substance.

The extent to which Congressman Delaney's tax plan would achieve the goal of tying tax incentives to specific projects that benefit the general population is certainly subject to debate, but if he is able to gain some traction in the current political environment and achieve any progress in rebuilding our decaying infrastructure then hats off to him.


Pee-wee Herman and today's political scene

pee wee herman


“I know you are, but what am I?” are the famous words of man-child Pee-wee Herman when caught in a heated argument. Should there really be any surprise that this is the same reaction of the other famous man-child, Donald J. Trump, when he reacts to those who question his fitness for the presidency or the actions he takes as president?


The business of government is not a business

donaldtrumpThe American voters elected a businessman to run the federal government because they mistakenly believed that the government would be run more effectively with a businessman at its helm. Why, then, is there any surprise that Donald J. Trump is running the federal government exactly as he had run Trump Enterprises? Why, then, is there any surprise that he expects federal government employees to respond to him exactly as Trump employees had?


The lost Sessions in Congress

Sessions hearingGive me a break! I really don't mind attending these Congressional hearings on the Russia probe.
I actually find them quite interesting and, at times, informative and even entertaining. Sometimes, however, the stench they generate can be quite overwhelming. Case in point: the June 13th Senate Intelligence Committee hearing and the testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.


Who to believe?

Resized 20170608 125934Who to believe? What a dilemma? Not an easy decision by any stretch of the imagination. Do I believe Donald J. Trump or do I believe former F.B.I. Director James Comey?
We all know by now how intolerant Trump is of liars. Remember his intolerance of “Lying Ted Cruz” during the presidential campaign. He was especially intolerant of Cruz for making that absurd accusation that Trump's father killed JFK? Oh, wait, that was actually the other way around. Trump actually accused Cruz' father of being directly involved in JFK's assassination. That accusation has, of course, been discredited.


Where have you gone Pumpsie Green?

Pumpsie Green 20121I have never used the so-called “N word” in my entire life. Never. Maybe the reason is because I never heard the term used in my own home.
I did hear it outside the home, but never in the home.
I also remember quite vividly when my best and black friend from junior high school, Ronald Williams, came looking for me and was asked by a white neighbor what he was doing here, my mom called out from the window and without hesitation, “he's our guest!"
I have, however, wondered how it could be that Major League Baseball was not integrated until 1947.
How did people justify the segregation based solely on skin color and not talent.


Dreaming the impeachable dream

Don Quixote tilting at windmillsIn 1868 the House of Representatives resolved to adopt articles of impeachment against President Andrew Johnson because, it was contended, the president violated the Tenure of Office Act. This Act required Senate approval for removing certain office holders.
It was the contention of the House that the president violated this Act when he removed Edwin McMasters Stanton, the Secretary of War, from office and replaced him with Lorenzo Thomas.
The Tenure of Office Act, by the way, was only in effect from 1667 to 1887.
Did this violation by President Johnson truly warrant impeachment or was adopting articles of impeachment purely a political act by Congress? Your guess is as good as mime regarding this impeachment hearing, but of note President Johnson was not convicted by the Senate.


Taking an “oaf” of loyalty

donaldtrumpThe primary reason Donald J. Trump fired F.B.I. Director James Comey was, simply, because he could. It is his firing of people that somehow satisfies his rather insatiable thirst for power. It was, as you will remember, the key component of his television show, the Apprentice. “You're fired!” was the signature line of that show and it served to demonstrate for all to see who, exactly, held the power. Donald J. Trump.


Maybe it's merely the longest 100 days - yet

trump thumbs up low resMore than 100 days or so into this administration and I must admit I have not grown tired of winning. I am just waiting for it to begin unless you consider Trump's firing the individual ultimately responsible for the F.B.I. investigation into his administration regarding the Russian connection a win. Well, I guess he considers that a win, at least for his own self-interest, for the time being. Whatever did happen to Boris Epstyn?


Meet the new boss - same as the Nixon boss

20170503 100417Before there was the firing, there was the hearing. This column is about the hearing held on May 3rd during which F.B.I. Director James Comey met with the Senate Judiciary Committee. The hearing was part of the annual oversight hearing of the F.B.I. although most of the discussion dealt with the Director's handling of two specific investigations. More specifically, the discussion centered on the differences in the Director's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation and his handling, quite differently, of the ongoing investigation into the current administration's involvement with Russia during the presidential campaign to influence the outcome of the election. Apparently the part about the Russia investigation was enough to frighten the administration into firing Director Comey less than a week later.

Subscribe to this RSS feed