U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to March for Life participants and pro-life leaders at the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington D.C., the United States, on Jan. 19, 2018. (Xinhua/Ting Shen)

In 2015, the then citizen Trump exclaimed that, "The infrastructure of our country is a laughingstock all over the world…our airports, our bridges, our roadways – it's falling apart…it's a terrible thing to see." As much as it pains me to say – he was right. This week the much-awaited Trump infrastructure plan has been unveiled and could become a lasting legacy for his administration. But will it be a positive one?

American roads are crumbling.  Her railroad systems inefficient and overpriced.  Bridge repairs, port expansions, electrical grid maintenance all go underfunded, and these inefficiencies have a measurable effect of the state of the U.S. economy. The United States urgently needs an upgrade – and she needed it yesterday. 

Indeed, the state of U.S. infrastructure is in dire condition.  According to a 2017 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the country's infrastructure averages an embarrassing "D" grade.  This implies that average U.S. infrastructure remains "mostly below standard," with "significant deterioration," and, terrifyingly, has a "strong risk of failure." It is estimated that the U.S. needs at least another $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment by 2025 to make up for this funding gap. But while this is indeed a steep investment, these would be dollars well spent.

To be sure, according to some analysts, for every dollar the United States spends on national infrastructure investment, the U.S. economy sees a three-dollar increase in GDP growth.  Furthermore, McKinsey, a major U.S. consulting firm, estimates that by spending just 1 percent of U.S. GDP on infrastructure, this could add up to 1.5 million good paying jobs to the U.S. economy.  With statistics like these, one might assume that any proposed infrastructure plan should leave us all titillated – but not this time.

Over the past year, the Trump administration has touted an ambitious, yet unarticulated infrastructure plan that would get Americans back to work.  Known for his fiery speeches where he often mentioned the embarrassing state of U.S. roads and bridges, after taking office he often teased of major plans in the works, pledging as much as $1.5 trillion in projects.  However, true to form, there were no strategies to properly finance such ambitious projects.  

This left economists and policy makers pessimistically optimistic about the bill set to be introduced earlier this week.  But again, even with all of the fanfare the proposed plan does not include any new net spending for infrastructure projects – in fact it reduces federal spending, instead footing the bill to cash-strapped state and local governments.  How should we feel about all of this?

To paraphrase the American President: "SAD!"

To be sure, the administration is proposing a massive, nationwide program valued at $1.5 trillion dollars to upgrade the foundations of the U.S. economy – and in any other time this would be a call for celebration.  But at present, while having pledged $200 billion dollars in federal infrastructure grants over the next ten years, the Center for American Progress claims that the bill proposed by the Trump administration proposes an actual net decrease of $281 billion through cuts to federally supported infrastructure projects.  Instead, the emphasis in these new grants won't be on type of project, but rather shifting infrastructure burdens from the federal government to those states and localities.

Furthermore, in order to be eligible for such grants, government applicants would have to foot at least 4/5 of total the project costs.  In all, while the administration is calling for $1.5 trillion in infrastructure spending, it expects the remaining $1.3 trillion dollars to be funded entirely by state and local governments.  

At present, U.S. state and local governments are currently spending significantly more than the proposal released by the administration, with an average of $250 billion per year.  State and local governments, and predominantly those in regions of high economic output were already struck particularly hard by the recent tax bill (and not coincidentally, with regional voting patterns heavily favoring the opposition Democratic party). This is due to the fact that the Republican tax plan cut tax deductions most often used by residents of states who voted Democrat in the 2016 elections.  By eliminating the most widely claimed deduction – federal deductions for state and local taxes – high-tax Democratic states will see significant increases in their tax burdens.  And to keep up with desperately needed infrastructure investment, revenues must be extracted somewhere – namely from the tax payer.  

The current administration is continuously complaining that Democrats don't play ball.  Yet, can you blame them?

This week's much-awaited Trump infrastructure plan was unveiled, and if successful it will indeed become a lasting legacy for the fumbling Trump administration – but it is hard to see how it could be a positive one.  Not for him, not for the high performing coastal economic centers, and certainly not for the country.

Michael D. R. Long is PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge Department of Social Anthropology with seven years of experience in China.

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.

Related

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)