Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Trump's Big Infrastructure Con

By       Message Leo Gerard       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   No comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   News 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 2/16/18

Author 52044

From Our Future

From youtube.com: Trump's infrastructure plan may be a lie, but it's a Smarter
From youtube.com: Trump's infrastructure plan may be a lie, but it's a Smarter
(Image by YouTube, Channel: USA TODAY)
  Permission   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

The administration's infrastructure proposal, released this week, bears no resemblance to Candidate Trump's campaign pledges. It shamelessly shirks the funding burden, and stops government construction projects that serve the public good.

Candidate Trump boasted that he would double what his opponent Hillary Clinton said she'd spend on infrastructure. But the scheme released by the Trump administration this week not only fails to do that, it would rob vital and cherished social safety net programs to pay for a pittance of improvements.

It is nothing but a con.

- Advertisement -

During the campaign, in August 2016, candidate Trump said his infrastructure plan would be bigger and better than his opponent's. "I would say at least double her numbers, and you're going to really need a lot more than that," Trump said in an interview on the Fox Business Network.

Clinton said she would increase federal spending on infrastructure by $275 billion. The Trump administration this week proposed $200 billion in federal spending on the likes of roads, bridges, water systems and airports over the next decade.

That's $75 billion less than Clinton. And, Clinton said hers would be in addition to current spending. Trump slashes traditional infrastructure spending in his budget. He snatches $178 billion over a decade from existing transportation programs. The Center for American Progress calculated that altogether the Trump budget cuts $281 billion from traditional infrastructure programs over the decade.

- Advertisement -

That means the administration actually intends to spend $81 billion less on infrastructure than would otherwise be allocated. That's not bigger and better. It's smaller and worse.

Administration apologists contend that Trump's $200 billion in federal infrastructure dollars will be matched by $1.3 trillion in private, state and local investment, for a grand total of $1.5 trillion. This would shift the burden from the feds to state and local governments and private investers.

The time-honored deal was 80 percent federal dollars matched by 20 percent local. The infrastructure con would flip that, forcing state and local governments to pony up 80 percent of the cost to win 20 percent from the feds.

This comes after Republicans passed a tax break for the rich and corporations that eliminates the deduction citizens previously received for their state and local taxes. That makes it harder for states and cities to raise taxes to pay for infrastructure.

In addition, it's not like states and cities are swimming in cash. In many, state lawmakers quarrel for months over what to cut. In some, politicians who slashed essential programs like education faced citizen backlash.

This responsibility dodge was explained last month to the U.S. Conference of Mayors by D.J. Gribbin, Trump's special assistant for infrastructure. He said, "What we really want to do is provide opportunities for state and local governments to receive federal funding when they're doing what's politically hard, and increasing investment in infrastructure."

- Advertisement -

Of course, federal officials are ducking what's politically hard by failing to increase investment in infrastructure. Instead, they're telling mayors and governors to do it.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) says that investment should be $4.59 trillion by 2025. Even if this con job managed to rustle up every cent of the demanded $1.3 trillion matching investment, the total would be $3 trillion less than the amount that the ASCE calculates is necessary to avert serious economic consequences, including $3.9 trillion in losses to GDP and 2.5 million lost jobs.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   News 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Leo W. Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers (USW - United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union) is in his second full term since being elected (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Middle Class Is So Christmas Past

Deep and Abiding Disrespect for Teachers

China's Currency Manipulation: Flipping off America

A New NAFTA Must Help, Not Hurt, Workers

Billionaire Wolves in Workers' Clothing

Promises, Promises, and More Broken Trade Promises