Progressives like myself have been warning about the infrastructure crisis for the past eight years plus, citing the American Society of Civil Engineers reports that have given in the US a failing grade nationwide.

In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the US aging, crumbling infrastructure a D, and it six areas of infrastructure received a lower grade from the ASCE than its 2001 report.  In other words, it became even worse under the Bush administration.

On Labor Day, President Obama announced his new proposal, as reported by McClatchy Newspapers:  "a quick $50 billion boost in federal spending to rebuild roads, railways and runways — a move he said will create jobs.....

"Obama vowed that his new proposal would create jobs immediately.

"White House aides conceded, however, that the proposal, which still would have to be approved by Congress and then implemented, is not likely to start creating jobs until next year."

While I understand the political hyperbolic spin about immediate jobs, again Obama is repeating his not nearly enough, stingy stimulus policy: $50 billion is chump change compared to what the US is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan and tax cuts for the rich.

The ASCE estimates that repairing the nation's infrastructure over the next five years would cost $2.2 trillion and Obama is proposing just $50 billion for only three segments of that failing infrastructure.

David Sirota writes at Open Left: "Sure, it's great that the president today is talking about spending $50 billion on infrastructure. As evidenced by this very diary, I obviously support such new spending. But when the paltry sum of $50 billion is put up against double that amount in corporate tax cuts, it seems like the administration's priorities are all screwed up. If the job-creating weakness of the first stimulus bill was it's willingness to devote roughly 40 percent of its funds to less-effective tax cuts and just 60 percent to employment-boosting spending, then a similar weakness will even more amplified in new stimulus proposals that, by the administration's initial figures, may end up devoting double to tax cuts what it devotes to infrastructure spending.

"Maybe this is yet another example of the administration looking first at how a policy can satisfy Big Money, and then at the (alleged) residual benefits to average American workers - rather than looking at it in the opposite way. If that's the case, it's tragic...."

I wrote this last year: "...in my opinion, the infrastructure portion of Obama's stimulus plan is too limited scope and budgeted far too low (compared to what these economic debacle perpetrating banks have received and are receiving) to make an effective difference. 

"How about the Obama economic team rethinking doling out the second bailout tranche to these big fraudster banks that caused the terrible catastrophe and, taking the remainder of the $1 trillion those rich mega bankers assume again will be lining their and their shareholders' pockets like the first tranche instead of making loans....use it for this country's failing infrastructure, not just a segment, and bring US infrastructure into the 21st century while creating millions of badly needed jobs?"

But, true to form, our placatory, conciliatory DINO president, falls short again with a measly $50 billion