Infrastructure

 | 

Somewhere I saw a quip about all roads running downhill. It is worth elaborating into a proposal for America’s crumbling infrastructure. We should rebuild our roads and bridges to run downhill — in both directions.

Although the earth’s surface is marked by hills and valleys, it is a sphere in the big picture, possibly allowing a downslope on balance. If America could harness the atom and put a man on the moon, we should be able to harness gravity to move our cars and trucks.

This program would dramatically increase gasoline mileage, guaranteeing our energy independence. It would reduce carbon emissions and stop the menace of global warming. It would make nationwide highway travel and transport faster and cheaper than ever. The very scale of the program, together with decisive benefits still to be mentioned, will create new prospects of national purpose and greatness, which to many citizens will be worth some sacrifice of their own narrow interests.

Rebuilding roads and bridges to slope downwards will be expensive, but that itself is an advantage. The great increase in federal spending (the rich paying their fair share) will stimulate the economy through multiplier effects and create jobs. More directly, very many scientists, engineers, and lawyers will be employed, at high salaries, to work out the program’s scientific, technical, and environmental details (such as the conservation of energy). Universities will find more grants and consulting work available for professors and more fellowships for graduate students. Many executives and bureaucrats will administer the program, and workers in many specialties will do the actual construction.

That is the clinching argument: jobs!




Share This


Words, Mindless Words

 | 

An Allstate ad in a recent Wall Street Journal has set me to wondering whether vogue words in ordinary speech and political speech are examples of the same mindless imitation. “Allstate led the fight by advocating for national Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) standards.” But why the “for”?

Because that extra word, like “advocate” itself, has become the latest vogue. “Prior to” and “incredible” have long become so deeply entrenched that they hardly seem like vogues any more. “Thrust,” as in the “thrust” of a speech or a proposal, enjoyed a vogue some years ago; but it seems to have gone out of fashion.

Nowadays terms like “crumbling infrastructure,” “climate change” (the currently more voguish term for “global warming”), “big corporations,” corporate and individual “greed,” the “1%” and “99%," “fair share,” “shipping jobs overseas,” “obesity epidemic,” and miscellaneous “crises” crop up everywhere. Often they carry policy implications. I wonder whether they betray the same mindlessness as “advocate for.”




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2017 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.