White House to Make Infrastructure Funding Application Process Easier

D. J. Gribbin, the president’s policy adviser, stands alongside President Trump to discuss the future of infrastructure policy. (Photo/Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)

December 13, 2017
OAN Newsroom

The Trump administration takes its first steps toward an infrastructure overhaul.

On Tuesday, the president’s policy adviser D.J. Gribbin said he plans to make the process for obtaining federal funding more transparent.

Gribbin stated “clear, measurable, and objective” standards will be introduced to help local governments and other applicants understand if they are eligible to receive money for building projects.

Reports say the move could speed up the president’s efforts to begin rebuilding the country’s crumbling infrastructure.

President Trump is expected to reveal his proposals to Congress early next year as officials work to complete the 70 page document.

Around $200 billion in federal seed money is expected to be used by the administration along with other incentives to increase infrastructure investment.

  • Bull7822005

    Did you just suggest that Whitefish was one of Trump’s “cronies” ?

  • Pingback: White House to Make Infrastructure Funding Application Process Easier – World Flash News()

  • brandehhh

    So why can’t there be a “bonus” for working with what is already available, and has been abandoned???

  • landy fincannon

    Feral funding is the nexus for further government intrusion into our private lives.

    Tha carrot always has strings attached to the stick, they beat us into submission with.

  • weasel1886

    How do you cut taxes while at the same time increase defense and infrastructure spending?
    Raise the debt. Trump is on track to spend more than Obama

    • constitutiononly

      The individual states should fund their own infrastructure improvements with the consent of their citizens. The last thing anybody wants is more freeways and more welfare/sanctuary cities feeding off the taxpayers.

      • weasel1886

        Wouldn’t states then be feeding off taxpayers?

        • All American

          They already are. Take a look around!

        • cyco phile

          Who is going to build all of the infrastructure? Unless the answer is illegal immigrants, we just created jobs.

      • RMCS Ret.

        It’s my understanding that the bulk of the “infrastructure” spending will be for the maintenance of the interstate highway system. The main purpose of the interstate system was not to make travel easier for the individual, although that has certainly happened, but was a national defence initiative started by President Eisenhower as a result of his experience with logistics difficulties during WWII. He wanted the interstate system in place to partly alleviate them should the need arise. Is the need still there? I have no idea, but if you have to move large quantities of heavy equipment, railroads and trucks are the obvious solutions. Given the state of the railroads these days they will be marginally effective. I see military truck convoys on a regular basis. I’m rambling. That was the purpose of the interstate system when it was conceived.

    • RMCS Ret.

      The theory is that reduced taxes, to a certain level, actually increases the governments take do to increased productivity in the private sector. The few times that it has been done it proved to be true. Whether it will be true this time remains to be seen.

      • weasel1886

        It has never worked. Remember Kansas? The idea just about destroyed that state and it didn’t work for the tax cuts under Bush

        • RMCS Ret.

          Remember the Kennedy and Reagan years?

          • weasel1886

            Revenue was not high enough to cover the drop in tax reciepts. Also both presidents increased spending by tremendous amounts

          • Bull7822005

            I’m not sure that you make sense here… “Revenue” is the same thing as “tax receipts”, but different than “tax rates”.

            And perhaps more central to your “counter-argument” against the Kennedy and Reagan tax measures, increased spending is a separate issue that has nothing to do with the validity of the Laffer curve or the theory behind reducing tax RATES to increase tax revenues (I highlighted “tax rates” because some in government and media tend to misleadingly equivocate between tax “rates” and tax “receipts/revenues”.

          • weasel1886

            In both cases the amount of taxes collected was not enough to offset the reduction in rates. The Laffer curve did not function as advertised

        • Bull7822005

          Arthur Laffer, who persuaded Reagan that this theory would work (and it did for Reagan) was interviewed on CNN about this back on 12/3. He noted that the tax bill he supported with the governor was originally half or a third the size of what the Kansas legislature ultimately passed, then the state ran into economic trouble with a down energy market which was bad for tax receipts as the Kansas economy was highly sensitive to oil and soybean markets (IIRC) which then ran into down markets. Despite this, he noted that businesses were known to have started migrating to Kansas from Missouri (specific references to Kansas City, MO businesses moving to Kansas City, KS.

          It was funny because his analysis seemed to be something that the CNN host didn’t particularly want to hear. I tend to think that, apart from the competitive jurisdictional effects, the Laffer effect is going to be somewhat muted in State tax jurisdictions because the tax rate for State jurisdictions is already very low (say 5%?) compared to Federal tax rates (20-40%)–so any change to a State tax rate structure is going to have a minimal impact to a consumer’s gross tax structure.

          The Kansas tax cut issue is not a good example either for or against the theory of the Laffer curve effect on tax receipts.

          • weasel1886

            I lived in Missouri at the time. There was not a huge movement of business across the border. The Kansas experiment was a complete failure

    • Twinkle Toes

      He can’t spend more than O.

      • weasel1886

        He is on track to right now and his military spending will blow a hole in the budget.

      • Bull7822005

        Let’s hope that CONGRESS does not take that as a “personal challenge”. Congress controls spending, not the president.