One sentence Tuesday from The Associated Press explains everything that’s wrong with Washington:
“President Donald Trump and Democratic congressional leaders agreed Tuesday to work together on a $2 trillion infrastructure package — but put off for later the difficult question of how to pay for it.”
Of course the elected officials could find common ground on the easy part. America has an obvious need for improvements to its roads and bridges, along with its water, sewer and drainage systems and its electrical grid.
Ah, but how to pay for it? That’s the rub. After all, the country already is running an annual deficit of $1 trillion. President Trump said his tax cuts would eliminate problems with the deficit, but so far it’s not happening.
Still, if the president and Congress ever figure out how to agree on a big infrastructure package, they would be spending an awful lot of money. In fact, short of war, the proposed $2 trillion for infrastructure may be the single biggest program in the history of American government.
Assuming such a program would run for at least 10 years, we’re looking at an average annual cost of $200 billion. The annual spending probably would be higher toward the end because of inflation. Where should the money come from?
Nobody offered any specific ideas about payment, although Democrats have long favored an increase in the federal gasoline tax. It has been 18.3 cents since 1993 and needs to increase if the country is serious about paying for highway and bridge improvements.
But a higher gasoline tax won’t come anywhere close to raising $2 trillion, so other sources will have to be considered. Maybe this involves higher water and sewer rates. Maybe a tax on electricity consumption to pay for grid improvements.
President Trump seems certain to oppose any extra taxes, even if they are used to invest in the country’s future. Republicans will either say they can find the money in the existing budget — or agree to increase the budget deficit. Democrats, meanwhile, always prefer raising taxes to getting a better handle on spending. So it’s difficult to see how the two sides will be able to forge an agreement on infrastructure. It would require some serious compromising on both sides.
However, there is one thing an infrastructure plan has going for it: Everybody benefits. These kind of improvements really do produce a win-win situation. Plus, an election looms.
If anything gets done before 2020, it puts a little more juice into the economy. The current expansion is at a record 10 years, and the law of averages dictates that a setback is near. Jobs created by infrastructure projects across the country could soften any downturn.
An infrastructure upgrade is a fine idea. The $2 trillion is at least ambitious. But can the two sides agree on the hard part of paying for it? It’s easy to be skeptical about that, because a solution definitely will be elusive.
— From The (McComb) Enterprise-Journal
