A new analysis by the Center for Public Integrity finds that many Americans are buying cheap construction equipment that isn’t actually needed, and that the government should stop subsidizing it.
The study found that of the roughly $3 billion in construction equipment subsidies the government gave to states between 2013 and 2016, about $2.5 billion went to equipment manufacturers.
The rest was for suppliers, suppliers of parts and materials, and contractors.
The report found that the vast majority of the equipment that was sold in 2016 came from the U.S. and Canada.
This is not surprising: While the U and Canada have some of the most competitive economies in the world, there are still significant barriers to exporting a significant amount of construction equipment to those countries.
That’s why the Trump administration has been lobbying the U: To prevent other countries from getting access to that much-needed equipment.
But the report found there’s an even bigger problem.
“There are a lot of barriers in the global supply chain,” said David Hodge, who authored the report with his colleague, Jessica Moulton-Lavigne.
The U.K., for instance, has about three times as many manufacturers as the U., and has a much bigger infrastructure.
So it’s a big, big deal that the U is getting that much more equipment from the world than it’s getting from us.
And the U isn’t alone in this.
While most of the countries on the planet have much larger economies than the U, the U’s government subsidizes the manufacturing of its own equipment, even if it’s not needed in its own country.
That subsidy has been in place since at least 1997.
The program is called the UCCS (United States Construction Conventional System), and it gives $4.4 billion in incentives to states each year to buy equipment from manufacturers.
But most states are allowed to sell only a small number of that equipment, which is why it costs so much.
For every dollar in subsidies the U gives out, the average American spends more than $5.
The average cost of that $4 billion is more than four times higher than the cost of a typical car.
That disparity is partly due to the fact that some states have built up an enormous infrastructure around their infrastructure, but that infrastructure is not designed for that kind of use.
There’s a huge cost to this infrastructure, and it’s mostly borne by the people who live there.
“When you buy this equipment, you’re going to be paying a lot more for it than you would pay if you just bought a car,” Hodge told The Verge.
But there are a few states that have built this infrastructure and are doing a great job of making that infrastructure available to the public.
The top three states are California, Texas, and New York.
California is the only state that doesn’t subsidize any type of construction.
But for the first three years of the program, it did.
“They just kept giving the subsidies,” Hoyle said.
And that extra mile is the biggest obstacle to getting more of it. “
In terms of actual use, I think that’s the biggest problem with this program.”
And that extra mile is the biggest obstacle to getting more of it.
In 2016, for example, California spent $10.7 billion on its infrastructure.
New York spent $11.7.
But California’s $10 billion was a lot less than New York’s $17.7, which was more than the $18.2 spent by New York alone.
That $9.2 billion in subsidies went to companies that built out the infrastructure, like the state’s Port Authority, which owns the New York Harbor.
New Yorkers don’t even get the credit for building that stuff.
“It’s really hard to get those kinds of subsidies for anything else,” Houlton said.
In fact, a lot is still unknown about the UCCCS.
The federal government does have a way to know how much equipment it subsidizes, but it’s pretty limited.
It doesn’t allow states to get information about how much money is spent on the equipment, and they can’t make a public estimate of how much it costs the U to build the infrastructure.
And when the U did give out $3.7bn in subsidies last year, only about one in five of that was actually spent.
So while it’s true that there are some states that are able to make a better guess at how much they need, there’s a lot that remains unknown.
The most basic, and most accurate, answer is that it costs a lot.
The researchers found that over the past three years, the government spent $1.6 billion on the URCS.
That figure includes the $3bn that went to manufacturers, and $1bn for the UCTS.
It also includes all of the $938 million