In the annual address to Congress, the US president, Donald Trump, recalled his promise to restore the country’s infrastructure. He informed senators and representatives that it is one of his major long-term objectives to invest $1,5 trillion in the development of “the safe, fast, reliable and modern infrastructure” in the country and simplify the issuance of permits for new infrastructure renewal and construction projects (Davis and Shear). The initiative has provoked a highly controversial reaction in Senate members and House representatives because some of them had claimed that more infrastructure funding is required, and others continue to state that “they don’t want a big spending bill” (Niquette).
As stated by Tankersley and Davis, “the increased infrastructure spending would be offset by unspecified budget cuts.” However, Trump did not specify where exactly those cuts might come from leaving it up to Congress. The given approach may probably become the major source of possible disagreements between Democrats and Republicans. However, it is possible to presume that the president’s national initiative may appeal to both parties as it is expected that the necessary funds will be derived from private-sector and state sources as well (Davis and Shear). As for local and state governors’ reaction, many of them expressed a concern that “the administration’s faith in that potential effect is misplaced” because there is no proof that the initial investment of $200 billion of federal funds can ultimately result in the total $1,5 trillion spendings (Tankersley and Davis). However, while the president’s plan is mainly and highly criticized by Democrats, many local businesses are looking forward to implementing it as the initiative may provide an opportunity to create new jobs and boost the regional economies.
Overall, it is possible to conclude that although Trump’s intended program may have a “wide bipartisan appeal” as stated by Davis and Shear, there is no guarantee that it will ever be implemented in its current form because of possible battles over the legislation and plausible ways to finance it among politicians and lawmakers. At first glance, the given national initiative is meant to serve a useful purpose of modernizing roads and bridges and increasing the overall infrastructure reliability. Still, Trump’s plan seems rather unrealistic. Moreover, there is always a risk that the private-sector investments may help benefit some wealthy business players and, at the same time, undermine the effectiveness of various essential endeavors in multiple sectors including environmental regulation. Thus, the current gaps and uncertainties in Trump’s infrastructure funding plan only increase the burden on Congress as both Democrats and Republicans are expected to move forward with it in a short time.
Davis, Julie Hirschfeld, and Michael D. Shear. “First Trump State of the Union Address Makes Appeal for Unity.” The New York Times. 2018, Web.
Niquette, Mark. “Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Hits Early Roadblock Over Funding.” Bloomberg Politics, 2018, Web.
Tankersley, Jim, and Julie Hirschfeld Davis. “Trump’s $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Plan is Light on Federal Funds, and Details.” The New York Times. 2018, Web.