A robust infrastructure deal has been a priority for the Biden Administration since day one. So, too has passing the bill in a bipartisan deal. As such, the announced $579 billion plan, negotiated between the White House and ten senators from both parties is a major win for the administration as well as bipartisanship, but is it a win for the American people? Let us take a look at what is in this infrastructure deal:
Item:
· Roads, bridges, major projects ($109 billion) | |
· Public transit ($49 billion) | |
· Passenger and Freight Rail ($66 billion) | |
· Electric vehicle infrastructure ($7.5 billion) | |
· Electric buses/transit ($7.5 billion) | |
· Airports ($25 billion) | |
· Water infrastructure ($55 billion) | |
· Broadband infrastructure ($65 billion) | |
· Environmental remediation ($21 billion) | |
· Power infrastructure incl. grid authority ($73 billion) | |
· Other ($101 billion)
Naturally with the price tag coming in at just under $600 billion much of the administration’s ambitious projects were left on the cutting room floor, such as supply chain investments and climate initiatives. That said, it does appear that a fair compromise was reached, the administration received significant funding for: · Clean transportation and infrastructure · Clean water · Universal broadband · Environmental resistance While Republicans got significant funding for “traditional infrastructure” such as roads, bridges, and major projects. That is how deals are supposed to work, both sides get things they want while making concessions in the process. Another feather in both caps is the fact that they can each say that they did not increase taxes. Unfortunately though, the funding portion hangs over the deal like an ominous cloud. Discussed are proposals such as repurposing pandemic relief funds to investing in tougher Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax collection and selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Of concern to small businesses is the possibility of “public-private partnerships”, which means tolls which are regressive inefficient debt schemes. |
Leave a Reply