The Defense department vs. the infrastructures.
Is it better for Congress to have defense department spending in their state or to spend more money on the USA infrastructures in their states?
In my opinion no. The largest port in the USA is the port of Los Angeles while the second largest port in the USA is the port of Long Beach those two ports are about twenty miles apart. Those two ports have three train tracks to Chicago for distribution to the rest of the country. That is a fine infrastructure in the USA. However in my opinion needs to be expanded to improve farming in the USA. How so one might ask.
Well first trains are great and could be used instead of barges going up and down the Mississippi River and the Ohio River. That water is more important for farming in the Middle and the Southeast parts of the USA. The water from the Missouri and the Ohio rivers should be diverted for farming down to Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Georgia. Congress should act to build ditches and pumping stations and divert that water for farming use.
We need train tracks built from New Orleans to Chicago to get the goods distributed to the rest of the country and not barges on the Mississippi river.
Yes the infrastructures for the electric grid, the bridges and the roads also need work, however we also have enough water for farming and can deal with these droughts which will happen again in the future as they have done in the past also.
Defense spending by congress in one thing, while the infrastructure spending in the USA by congress is another thing. Reduce the Defense spending and increase the Infrastructure is what congress needs to do in my opinion to create more jobs.
Who really cares if the Defense department is cut as there are other ways to spend money by congress? This drought needs to not happen in the future again, and if building ditches and pumping station is all that needs to be done then we as a nation should do that instead.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 9
All the crops from California are by rail. California moves water around for irrigation of usually 3 crops in the Imperial Valley. If you eat broccoli it's most likely from there. Trains are reliable and more cost effective than ever before and could be expanded more.
There will be more droughts in the future. As there always are and those will always be a disaster if not dealt with.
Without water there is no port. New Orleans is quite a ways up the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico.
New Orleans is, say, 20 miles inland (it's getting further inland all the time). If the river stops flowing, the ship channel for those 20 miles will silt up and sand up pretty quickly. At present, the speed of the river's flow is maintaining that channel. (Have you looked at a map of Louisiana and seen that "pipeline" that extends into the Gulf? That's what the river is doing due to how they arranged the flow using levees and such.) So without the Mississippi maintaining a good flow, New Orleans is not a port at all.
While at the same time we have the largest military budget in the world, military installations in dozens and dozens of countries, and our military is funded entirely by debt.
And because of massive sovereign debt accumulation - in large part to pay for decades of our ginormous military - it appears we will soon be able to afford neither a substantive military nor what are commonly noted as sorely needed infrastructure improvements.
If the public did not like this, we would not continue to reward the two major political parties who have led us to this point. But support for these two parties is at about a literal 100% of The U.S.A. electorate.
And when I point out such dichotomies, I am usually ignored. Though sometimes excoriated - such as being told I'm not very smart, or recently kicked off my prior social website.
Thus have the idiot masses repeatedly & unanimously spoken up for infrastructure spending, "Let them eat eat cake!"