No, there’s nothing inherently wrong with supporting strengthening the structural backbone of modern society, but color ye old scribe just a wee bit skeptical as to motivation.

Big business is lining up to support President-elect Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy with the biggest spending spree on roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects since the Eisenhower administration.

Business groups believe injecting funds into rebuilding America’s roads and highways could put thousands back to work at a time of rising unemployment. As a result, lobbyists from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) are asking lawmakers and Obama’s transition team to funnel federal funds to “shovel-ready” projects as the best way to stimulate the flagging economy. Source

Why?

1) The handwriting is clear and unassailable that there will be a Democratic administration and a Democratic lock on Congress. Not getting a foot in the door at the start is just plain self-destructive. Opposing en masse what is a keystone policy initiative right off the bat is a guarantor of limiting later access.

2) Deep down (maybe not even all that deep), this is looked at as (primarily) ‘free money.’ That is, it, unlike the ‘bailout’ funding for the banking and finance industries which is being shuffled around in-house or in-sector, will shower down directly or indirectly to the benefit of those with goods (and with related or ancillary services) to sell, whether through a multiple-branching tree chart of sub-contractors or by way of an increased consumer pool of relatively well-paid workers (along with their chunk of disposable income) whose costs are not nearly as much being borne by their employers as would normally be the case. In short, the cost-benefit ratio is amenable to the business sector as the output for labor is greatly minimized while the potential for income via sales is de facto increased by what is perceived as ’someone else’s money.’

Now, just because the stance may be seen as self-serving does not necessarily equate with the stance as being ill-conceived. But let’s all go into this with eyes wide open, shall we?