Infrastructure Challenge Tests Washington’s Ability to Function

There is no area where more bipartisan agreement exists than that of repairing America’s crumbling infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) rates the nation’s infrastructure at only a D+.

ASCE notes: “Our nation is at a crossroads. Deteriorating infrastructure is impeding our ability to compete in the thriving global economy, and improvements are necessary to ensure our country is built for the future. While we have made some progress, reversing the trajectory after decades of underinvestment in our infrastructure requires transformative action from Congress, states, infrastructure owners, and the American people. Our nation’s infrastructure challenges are significant but solvable. Through strategic, sustained investment, bold leadership, comprehensive planning, and careful preparation for the needs of the future, America’s infrastructure will be improved and restored. For the U.S. economy to be the most competitive in the world, we need a first-class infrastructure system—transport systems that move people and goods efficiently and at reasonable cost by land, water, and air; power transmission systems that deliver reliable, low-cost power from a sustainable range of energy sources; and water systems that protect public health. To achieve this, leaders on both sides of the political aisle need to make good on promises they have made to improve our nation’s infrastructure and ensure these pledges don’t fall by the wayside after each election cycle.”

But can work on this begin in 2018? From the potholed roads and overaged bridges of the Northeast to the worrisome levees of New Orleans and the inadequate mass transit of California, the United States is in urgent need of infrastructure upgrade and repair. That’s only part of the problem. The nation’s electrical grid, currently unprotected, could be wiped out by an EMP attack originating from either an attack or a natural solar event.

Sip this liquid http://djpaulkom.tv/throwback-thursday-lord-infamous-photo-gallery/ cheap cialis whenever heartburn occurs. 2. Sadly, testosterone is not the only reason of happiness. purchase generic cialis http://djpaulkom.tv/da-mafia-6ix-vlo6-5-crunchy-black-koopsta-knicca-turn-up-in-knoxville/ In addition, prostatitis can sildenafil price in india cause harms to the human body and influence the life, as follows: One, affect sexual function, cause impotence and premature ejaculation. How sleep problems cause erectile problems? In male, there is a hormone named ‘testosterone’ responsible for his performance in price sildenafil Spartacus. #1 Jim Brown – Jim Brown is a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. However, regardless of that, both parties, and most Americans, have taken note of the need to address the crisis.

The Trump Administration believes that “Nothing more visibly reveals the failure of Washington than the crumbling roads, bridges, and infrastructure that dot America’s landscape. Instead of putting people to work, fragmented and unpredictable federal approval processes drag on for years and sometimes decades. It’s time to lighten the federal touch, provide clear rules of the road for new technologies, and empower communities to modernize this archaic system… Rebuilding America’s infrastructure is a critical pillar of President Donald J. Trump’s agenda to promote job creation and grow the U.S. economy. America’s infrastructure has fallen to 12th in the world and that is unacceptable. Every American depends on our roads, rails, ports, and airports, and the President is committed to fixing this problem, not just pushing more liabilities onto future generations… The Federal Government inefficiently invests in non-Federal infrastructure. In part, our lack of sustained progress has been due to confusion about the Federal Government’s role in infrastructure. During the construction of the Interstate System, the Federal Government played a key role – collecting and distributing Federal tax revenue to fund a project with a Federal purpose. As we neared the completion of the Interstate System, those tax receipts were redirected to projects with substantially weaker nexus to Federal interests. The flexibility to use Federal dollars to pay for essentially local infrastructure projects has created an unhealthy dynamic in which State and local governments delay projects in the hope of receiving Federal funds. Overreliance on Federal grants and other Federal funding can create a strong disincentive for non-Federal revenue generation. At the same time, we continue to apply Federal rules, regulations, and mandates on virtually all infrastructure investments. This is despite the Federal Government contributing a very small percentage of total infrastructure spending. Approximately one-fifth of infrastructure spending is Federal, while the other four-fifths are roughly equally divided between State and local governments on one hand and the private sector on the other. We will reevaluate the role for the Federal Government in infrastructure investment.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.