Then give the man a chance to make specific proposals before you decide that the only answer is NO.
RE: Then give the man a chance to make specific proposals before you decide that the only answer is NO.
OK, let’s look at the idea a little bit more closely since this infrastructure spending idea has already been implemented by Obama ( remember the “shovel ready” jobs ?)....
Infrastructure more or less falls into three categories, and Trumps one-size-fits-all plan doesnt work very well for any of them.
1) First is infrastructure that pays for itself, such as the electrical grid. Private companies and public agencies are already taking care of this kind, so if Trumps plan applied to them, they would get tax credits for spending money they would have spent anyway. Thats not revenue neutral.
2) The second kind of infrastructure doesnt pay for itself. Rail transit is a good example, and this tends to be the infrastructure that is in the worst shape. It wont suddenly become profitable just because someone gets a tax credit, so under Trumps plan it will continue to crumble.
3) The third kind of infrastructure consists of facilities that could pay for themselves but dont because they are government owned and politicians are too afraid of asking users to pay. Local roads fit into this category. Simply creating tax credits doesnt solve that problem either.
Trump may think that local governments and transportation agencies will jump at the chance to borrow money from private investors to fix infrastructure, and then repay that money out of whatever tax sources they use to fund that infrastructure. But those government agencies can already sell tax-free bonds at very low interest rates.
It isnt clear how taxable bonds issued by private investors who get tax credits are going to be any more economical.
Most public-private partnerships for projects that have no revenue stream are entered into by the public party to get around some borrowing limitation. If the infrastructure spending is really necessary, it makes more sense to simply raise that borrowing limit than to create a byzantine financial structure that, Trump imagines, will have the same effect.
In short, whether funded by municipal tax-free bonds or taxable private bonds, those bonds will ultimately have to be repaid by taxpayers. We know from long experience that politicians are more likely to ask taxpayers to pay for new projects than maintenance of existing projects, and Trumps plan will do nothing to change that.