Good Morning 99%'ers. Today's Open Thread topic in another in the series on neo-liberalism. For those who may be interested in previous essays on this subject, here are the links to those essays.

Week 1 - The Curse of Neo-liberalism
Week 2 - Neo-liberalism Part 2
Week 3 - The Neo-liberal Myth of Meritocracy
Week 4 - Characteristics of Neo-liberalism
Week 5 - Neo-liberalism - Obama and the Clintons
Week 6 - Neo-liberalism - The Legacy of Bill Clinton
Week 7 - Neo-liberalism - Lack of Empathy
Week 8 - Overview of the Impacts of Privatization
Week 9 - The Rule of the Market
Week 10 - Effects of the Neo-liberal Push for Deregulation
Week 11- Cutting Expenditures for the Social Safety Net
Week 12 - Neo-Liberal Commoditization of Education
Week 13 - Impact of Neo-Liberalism on Higher Education

In one of my first essays in this series on neo-liberalism, I referenced an excellent article titled What is Neoliberalism? This article was written by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia and published by Corp Watch. This article provided an excellent definition of neo-liberalism as well as a listing of the five characteristics of neo-liberalism. Among the five characteristics of neo-liberalism is the cutting of public expenditures for social services and reducing the safety net for the poor.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURES for social services like education and health care. reducing the safety net for the poor, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

Neo-liberals are constantly declaring that we must cut government expenditures in order to reduce the tax burden upon the people. But their real purpose is to reduce government's role in the provision of services. Among those traditional services is the provision of infrastructure. Public provision of infrastructure is a critical component for every family, business, and community to safely survive, grow and thrive.

Often we hear people complaining that government should be run more like a business. That whole premise is fallacious, but even for those who may believe this to be true, no business can survive if its owners are not willing to invest in it and maintain it. So it is with public infrastructure. It must be maintained and upgraded in order to meet the demands of the community it serves. However, in recent decades, investment and the maintenance in infrastructure has been sorely neglected.

Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers compiles an infrastructure report card. The last report card was issued in 2013 and infrastructure throughout the United States was given a D+ rating. While that means infrastructure throughout the United States remains at a Poor plus rating, there was a small amount of good news.

An Advisory Council of ASCE members assigns the grades according to the following eight criteria: capacity, condition, funding, future need, operation and maintenance, public safety, resilience, and innovation. Since 1998, the grades have been near failing, averaging only Ds, due to delayed maintenance and underinvestment across most categories.

Now the 2013 Report Card grades are in, and America’s cumulative GPA for infrastructure rose slightly to a D+. The grades in 2013 ranged from a high of B- for solid waste to a low of D- for inland waterways and levees. Solid waste, drinking water, wastewater, roads, and bridges all saw incremental improvements, and rail jumped from a C- to a C+. No categories saw a decline in grade this year.

The American Society of Civil Engineers categorizes infrastructure into four broad categories, most of which have two or more sectors totaling sixteen sectors in all. The broad categories are Water and the Environment, Transportation, Public Facilities, and Energy. The Society has estimated that it would take $3.6 Trillion dollars investment by 2020 to bring our infrastructure up to standard.

There is a tendency in government whereby elected officials, under the pressure of cutting taxes, end up cutting budgetary items each cycle. Usually among the first cuts are the budgets for maintenance. Maintenance is something that is not easily seen when it is done on a regular basis to keep our facilities and infrastructure up to date. But when budget cuts defer maintenance and upgrades, eventually it becomes an economic detriment and often a safety and risk factor.

Studies have shown that when our infrastructure falls into disrepair or becomes out dated, the costs to the community are very high. Deferring maintenance is a penny wise but pound foolish choice. Beyond the safety concerns, the economic impacts to both families and business are very real when infrastructure is not maintained or becomes obsolete. The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that each household in the United States will lose an estimated $3,400 in disposable income per year over the next ten years due to inadequate or outdated infrastructure.

Over time, these impacts will also affect businesses’ ability to provide well-paying jobs, further reducing incomes. If this investment gap is not addressed throughout the nation’s infrastructure sectors by 2025, the economy
is expected to lose almost $4 trillion in GDP, resulting in a loss of 2.5 million jobs in 2025.

It is very rare that I post an essay based upon only one source, but this essay is an exception. I am using the American Society of Civil Engineers site and their postings as an introduction to the issue of our crumbling infrastructure and how greatly it is and can affect each of us. I intend to expand upon the issue of our crumbling infrastructure further in at least one and possibly more essays in the coming weeks.

As always, this is an Open Thread and any subject that you may want to discuss is welcomed in this thread.