I do have to argue here. Unemployment was skyrocketing when Reagan took office, and it was very directly related to the tariffs that had put in place to maintain market competitiveness in the domestic markets. After other nations began to catch up in the labor markets due to reconstruction from World War II, we found ourselves with an uncompetitive level of operating costs to justify keeping labor in the US. Our choices were to allow American businesses to use foreign labor to keep the capital in the American markets, or let the capital go with the labor to the foreign markets. If that had happened, we would never have had the capital to create the market boom of the 90’s.
Yes, without the labor force as a vehicle of wealth distribution, the capital found itself pooling at the top. This has created extreme levels of wealth disparity. However, I also believe that some of the strains felt by the loss of capital by the general American population has been the effect of capital leaving to create more global parity. I think that is a good thing. Remember, we’ve lived at an unsustainable level of consumption here. We cannot expect the world to rise to that level. Therefore, in order to share, we must accept less for other nations to have some level of parity.
Also, municipal infrastructure is the responsibility of municipalities. You want to see more investment in municipal infrastructure? Invest in municipal bonds, or ask your investment adviser (or plan manager, or whoever) to invest in municipal bonds. That is how municipalities pay for their infrastructure. This part has nothing to do with government, or taxes, and everything to do with how we invest in our markets as a citizenry.