Big infrastructure projects benefit Americans. These projects increase individual capability. Combined individual capability generates national capability.

Last week, we established the state has a duty to provide resources for individual capability.

An obvious question is…how should the state provide these resources? Should we create handout programs supporting individual Americans?

The passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 empowered America to build big infrastructure. Congress could fund larger and more ambitious projects. The infrastructure projects following the passage of the 16th Amendment and their capability included:

* The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. This act built the foundation for today’s interstate movement of goods and services. The American economy relies on this movement every day.

* Construction of the Hoover Dam began in 1931. This project transformed the American Southwest. The dam provided regional flood control, water irrigation, and hydroelectric power. Today, the dam supports power in California, growth in Las Vegas and Phoenix, and agriculture in the southwest.

* The Tennessee Valley Authority, established in 1933, improved a part of America severely affected by the Great Depression. The TVA addressed flooding and electricity and improved the economy in the Tennessee Valley. The TVA developed a series of hydroelectric dams and later expanded into coal and nuclear energy production. By later supporting the Manhattan Project, the TVA laid the groundwork for the bedrock of America’s national security.

* The 1936 Rural Electrification Act supported home and business electricity for millions of Americans in rural areas. Nebraska Senator George Norris (R), now considered by some to be America’s Greatest Senator, described the need for the act as giving rural Americans a ‘fair chance.’ This project today supports light and heat in houses and businesses across America.

In sum, big infrastructure transforms the American landscape. It fosters national economic growth. It supports American energy. It lays the groundwork for national security. It enables individual Americans to have the energy they need for life. These projects are investments in the foundational capabilities that enable individuals to thrive.

Infrastructure is capability. Big infrastructure benefits individual Americans. Individual capability generates national capability.

There’s another component of generating national capability through supporting individuals. Individuals have a lead role and responsibility to be active participants in the infrastructure. Setting conditions to empower access to infrastructure maximizes their individual potential.

That’s an interesting word: potential.

Potential is an energy word. A ripe apple hanging from a tree has potential energy. When it falls from the tree, its potential energy becomes kinetic energy.

Just like an apple has potential energy, individuals have potential. Individuals realize their potential through effort and commitment.

Back to the apple metaphor. The collective of the American people, embodied by the state, builds the apple orchard. The state plants and cares for the trees. The trees need water and sunlight. Good soil conditions. Insect mitigation. When conditions are right, the trees bear fruit.

The apples are individuals. Under good conditions, the apples grow and ripen. If conditions aren’t great, the apples may still form and grow, but they won’t be great apples.

Apples need a great orchard to be great. Likewise, individuals and communities need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to realize their full potential. Collective individual capability enhancement fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness.

Let’s consider a case study.

The infrastructure for this case study is human capital — the knowledge, skills, and abilities of people. Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation's overall capability.

February 2024. Arlington, Virginia. The Arlington Community Foundation published Arlington’s Guarantee Pilot Evaluation Report. The website refers to the pilot program as “unconditional cash for families in need.”

For the pilot evaluation, the Arlington Community Foundation randomly selected 200 low-income working families in the county. The foundation gave these families $500 extra dollars per month, every month for 18 months. We’ll call this group the participants. The foundation studied the effects of the extra income and compared this participants group against a control group that didn’t receive additional funds.

**Note** The Arlington Community Foundation acquired all necessary funding from private donors, business donations, faith communities, and other foundations. They used no public dollars for the study. The foundation offered individual coaching to participants.

The study (pg 18) found that above and beyond the additional $500 per month, the participant group’s median monthly income grew by 36%. As in, not including the $500 per month, the participant group income grew. At the same time, the control group’s income only grew by 9%.

When the participant group had more money, they also made more money from their work.

It’s a fascinating scenario. The participant group had more time because they had more money. They didn’t have to work overtime or work multiple jobs to meet basic needs. The participants used their extra time to pursue professional credentials and job training. They went to school. They bought better clothes for job interviews. More than half of the participants made progress toward achieving career development goals.

The study gave the participant group the opportunity to connect to the infrastructure. Given the opportunity, the group invested in their own human capital.

The bottom line: when given the opportunity and coaching to connect to the infrastructure (in this case, education), the individuals realized some of their potential.

One could look at the logic of this study and conclude that we should create a broad program similar to this pilot everywhere.

But that’s the wrong conclusion. This pilot program was a success, but it’s treating individual apples instead of the orchard. Instead, this program represents a failure of Americans to be able to work one job and make enough money to live out of poverty.

Americans don’t need handouts to connect to the infrastructure. But they do need conditions that support connecting themselves. They need heat in the house and food on the table with the money they make from one job. And they need the opportunity for self-improvement. Working multiple jobs just to put food on the table for their kids takes away the ability of Americans to seek professional advancement.

Let’s get back to our premise. The state has a duty to provide resources for individual capability. How should the state provide these resources? Should we create handout programs supporting individual Americans?

Big infrastructure programs demonstrate results. National economic growth. Stronger American energy. National security.

Big infrastructure programs also demonstrate that Americans will connect themselves to infrastructure when given the opportunity. When given the opportunity to move goods across states, American businesses jump at the chance. When we need flood control for agriculture and resources for national security, Americans are ready. When electricity is available, rural Americans connect themselves to electricity.

The state doesn’t need to give handouts.

Just like an apple orchard, Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications.

To be able to connect to this infrastructure, Americans need the means to be able to have enough time to develop professional skills. They need heat in the house and food on the table from the money they make with one full-time job.

May God bless the United States of America.

Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe