There will be no major infrastructure initiative during President Donald Trump’s first four years in office.
Trump, who claims to be a “master builder” of projects big and small, will never say that. But Washington lobbyists and veterans of past infrastructure battles now are saying publicly what has long been whispered privately. There are several reasons for infrastructure inertia:
So, you can put away those aging “Infrastructure Week” buttons, folks, and maybe break them out again in 2021 in what has become the longest running joke in Washington: What’s longer than Infrastructure Week? How about Infrastructure Term Limits?
The first infrastructure week began early in Trump’s term when he boasted of a $2 trillion package. But it was not $2 trillion in actual spending on roads and bridges. Instead, it was mostly a piecemeal of privatization gimmicks and alternative financing that failed to get traction even in a Republican-controlled Congress.
That led to the famous Trump-Nancy Pelosi meltdown in the White House in the spring of 2018. That’s when the Democratic Speaker of the House and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. the Senate minority leader, met with Trump in the White House. Briefly.
That June 2019 photo op at the White House between leaders of both political parties renewed hopes for a $2 billion package on infrastructure improvements that supporters said was “big and bold.” But those hopes were dashed by President Trump almost immediately after he stomped out of a subsequent meeting between Pelosi and Schumer over some reason or another.
Now, top lobbyists in Washington are correctly reading the tea leaves and realizing there will be no major push on infrastructure in 2020.
Testifying before the Senate Committee on banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs recently, Ed Mortimer, U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president, transportation and infrastructure, took off the gloves and emphasized the imperative of bipartisan support for surface transportation reauthorization now—not later.
“We should not confuse activity with accomplishment on this vital policy initiative,” Mortimer said recently. “The time is now for elected officials in Washington to take charge and tackle the problem with both adequate funding and a long-term plan.
“What we need is a greater sense of urgency, some innovative thinking, and, frankly, a lot more political courage,” Mortimer told lawmakers. “The bottom line is that the time to make important infrastructure investments is NOW. Delaying action only makes the decisions more difficult and projects costlier.”
A joint infrastructure funding framework was issued by three House Democrats. That seeks to invest $760 billion over five years on the nation’s roads, bridges and transit systems. But in a key omission, there were no “pay-fors” identified for the transportation spending increases, or the overall spending package.
Still, that was enough for hope to spring eternal. Jim Tymon, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), said the proposal is an important “first step” toward addressing the nation’s transportation needs. He said it would authorize $319 billion for highway investments and $105 billion for transit systems within that $760 billion five-year funding plan.
“It is our hope that the next step in this process results in a bipartisan transportation funding package; one that enacts a long-term, sustainable revenue solution for the Highway Trust Fund as well as increases and prioritize formula-based federal funding,” Tymon said in a statement.
American Trucking Associations President and CEO Chris Spear issued an optimistic statement after House Democrats released their outline for infrastructure legislation:
“We commend Speaker Pelosi and House Leaders for their commitment to revitalizing American infrastructure. Each additional day that we short our nation’s roads and bridges of needed funds, more lives are at put at risk, more hours of the day are lost sitting in traffic and more damage is done to the environment,” Spear said. “We look forward to working with Congress and the Administration on a robust infrastructure package that restores our roads and bridges with a cost-effective, fiscally conservative and realistic funding solution in the near-term.”
ATA has proposed the Build America Fund, which would be supported with a federal fuel-usage fee – 24.4 cents on diesel and 18.4 cents on gasoline, unchanged since 1993. That tax would be collected at the wholesale terminal rack, and phased in at a nickel per year over four years. It also would be indexed to both inflation and improvements in fuel efficiency, with a five percent annual cap.
ATA estimates the Build America Fund would generate $340 billion in new revenue over the first 10 years, without adding a dime to the federal deficit or requiring any new administrative bureaucracy.
The Business Roundtable, which along with the U.S. Chamber represents business interests in Washington, also said it “welcomes” the recent introduction of policy frameworks and principles for infrastructure modernization.
A recent Business Roundtable study showed that every additional dollar invested in infrastructure would deliver roughly $3.70 in additional economic growth over 20 years.
“We look forward to reviewing the components of these proposals and encourage Congress and the administration to work together toward bipartisan legislation that would make a significant and sustained investment in renewing America’s infrastructure,” the Business Roundtable said in a statement. It did not identify which administration it might be working with on that infrastructure problem.