Off course you are right, many people could be employed rebuilding our infrastructure, But who would pay their salaries?
In part, this can be privatized – the Golden Gate Bridge is famously privately owned, as is the Ambassador Bridge from Detroit to Canada. Bridges are profitable, but it is hard to think of a way to charge someone for using the pavement on Main Street, or the sewers underneath it. It seems that infrastructure is a public good and the only realistic employer for infrastructure is the government, but then Americans will have to be willing to pay more taxes for the work. With both Presidential candidates vying to cut taxes, it seems unlikely.
However, it is nevertheless possible. There is the example of good ol’ Bill Clinton, whose first act as President was to raise taxes, setting the stage for a balanced budget and (I would contend) a prolonged economic expansion. So we can hope that whoever becomes President will follow this good example, and sneak the bitter medicine in while no one is paying attention.

America needs a remodel. There is plenty to do. Maybe instead of a bailout, the feds should have sold 700 Billion dollars worth of bonds to pay for it.

>It is based on a successful implementation that they did in the 70’s.

>This deleveraging problem has three fundamental issues:

>The market has recognized that energy production and other essential materials are not going to be in expanding supply. Therefore the model for economic expansion is not going to be sustainable anymore. America will have to think about sharing the resources of the planet or follow the path of war and self destruction. The new focus has to be in sustainability.

>In USA the baby boomer generation is starting to retire and the following X and Y generation don’t have the capital to buy the asset that the previous generation has amassed. There is a generational shift happening.

>Credit creation and management has been the focus on this economy, credit has been our main product and a big part of the problem.

>So, to stabilize the markets there has to be a focus on the assets the system is based on, and that is housing.

>Government has a key roll in propping up demand, but at the same time let some of the natural correction to continue.

>Create a tax incentive to new home buyers (Between $10,000 to $25,000) depending of the value of the home.

>Support a mortgage plan backed by the government (Fannie and Freddy). 30 yr. fixed only!! with 4% to 5% annual interest rate.
And some of the restrictions should be:

>Buyers will need a 10% to 20% down. And the more you put down the more you can move the interest rate.
>For the incentive to work the buyer should not be able to sell the house in three years.
>And finally it should have a cap in the mortgaged amount of 5 times the amount of gross income. Use tax return in 2007 for proof.

>Now, for the stock market, we should move the cap for the ROTH IRA accounts and 401K to double what they are.

A lesser point – you wrote the figure of $2.19 trilliion in local government debt, implying (I believe) that you think it’s a bad thing. However, with some experience in local government, I can say that it is not. Capital projects by local governments are properly financed by bonds, which are paid by future tax revenues. In this way, those who get the future benefit of the project actually pay for it. If a local government chose instead to save money out of tax revenues for a project, present taxpayers would be paying for a project in the future whihch they might never get to use. So bonding (debt) is ethically correct for local governments. And such bonds are essentially always paid off.