If you want to see how the folks "on the ground" would like to spend the billions of dollars in infrastructure money likely to be siphoned from the federal government's coffers, go to the US Conference of Mayors website, which contains the "wish list" of projects favored by the nation's local leaders. The projects are a smorgasbord of offerings: $19 billion for water-related projects, $24 billion for road-related work, and nearly $4.5 billion in spending for airport-related deals, among others.

Are those projects worthwhile? Most analysts say they will certainly create employment, which is the first priority as the incoming Obama administration considers its options. But are they the wisest investments the nation could make? That's where the debate begins.

A great deal of the federal money spent on infrastructure is decided by political bodies like the House Transportation Committee, which helps determine whether $100 million should be spent on new locks on the Ohio River or on adding a couple of lanes to a key stretch of interstate highway. Experts have complained for years that politics tends to play to big a role in how that money is spent. Some have advocated the nation should have a "transportation czar" or a blue-ribbon infrastructure board to consider the best and wisest use of money for transportation infrastructure. However, if money is the mother’s milk of politics, then it doesn't seem likely that Congress will easily let go of those kinds of appropriations.

For more analysis of President-elect Obama’s plans for infrastructure, check out my report in the “A Time for Change: The Obama Agenda” series.