A bad blueprint in Trump’s infrastructure plan could abandon the very people who got him elected Stephen Brashear/Getty Images
MT. VERNON, WASHINGTON - MAY 23: Crews survey the scene of a bridge collapse on Interstate 5 on May 23, 2013 near Mt. Vernon, Washington. I-5 connects Seattle, Washington to Vancouver B.C., Canada. No deaths have been reported, and three people were taken to hospitals with injuries. (Stephen Brashear/Getty Images)

If Republicans can  land on an Affordable Care Act replacement that they can agree on, they’ll turn to the next of President Donald Trump’s campaign promises: to “fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals,” as he said on Election Night.

But Trump’s plan, which claims to wring $1 trillion in infrastructure spending out of a $167 billion government investment, fails at two points: It’s biased against some of the most vital types of infrastructure projects in the United States, and it abandons projects that would most benefit his own voters.

The plan uses that $167 billion to seed projects and provide tax breaks to the private contractors and investors who complete them. Their plan assumes that every project will be attached to a reliable revenue stream. Contractors and investors will receive sizable tax breaks for working on these infrastructure projects, but the Administration says that the taxes they collect as a result of those projects will cover them.

This sounds great for contractors and investors. It isn’t great for a country in desperate need of infrastructure investment, especially in the places Trump won by the strongest margins.

At the core of this proposal is the idea to tie every infrastructure project to a revenue stream. That idea immediately prioritizes certain types of projects over others. It incentivizes projects with an obvious revenue stream like oil pipelines, toll roads, airports and railroads. It does not, however, mean much for projects like the replacement of lead-poisoned pipes, dams without generating capability, levees, dredging waterways or public roads.

Ironically, lead pipes in Flint, Michigan are mentioned in the plan, but not especially well-served by it.

These less-profitable projects could only be made profitable in one of two ways: tapping local or state revenue streams to pay investors, or charging additional tolls/surcharges on users. Both options would leave taxpayers with the bill, something that’s hitover and over again in this proposal—as an Obama-era signature. And unlike the federal government, states simply cannot take on the debt that comes with some of these projects. Many states are struggling with a rapidly-approaching pension crisis and a short menu of bitter financial options to handle it.

In short, relying on state finances to tackle infrastructure needs is not a viable solution. Even emergencies could be hard to finance; repairs to California’s Oroville Dam are estimated to cost $4.7 million per day.

Effectively, Trump’s plan ensures that a lot of projects will never be built.

In a cruel irony, President Trump’s infrastructure plan also stands to benefit urban and suburban areas the most, the wealthiest and most vibrant of which are located in blue states. His plan charges market forces to determine the value of infrastructure projects, not states or governments.

But it’s not just that investors will inherently favor high-value projects; those projects, whose values are assessed in usage and tolls, are disproportionately located far from Trump’s own voters. Not even Donald Trump can out-bid American demographics. Americans have been moving to cities and suburbs for years, and as long as they have the greatest ability to pay the revenues that support Trump’s plan, infrastructure dollars will follow them.

Patrick is a content editor for Rare.
View More Articles

Stories You Might Like