Democrats have good and two bad infrastructure requirements

Before meeting with President Trump prior to the meeting at the White House on Tuesday, President Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. proposed three principles for infrastructure reform.

A proposal deserves the openness of President Trump's spirit. The other two deserve the unequivocal rejection of Trump.

The letter notes that any major infrastructure bill requires "substantial, new and real revenues". Although it may seem bad for many conservatives, nothing is free. Future generations are already facing a serious problem to cope with the country's massive indebtedness, but unbridled infrastructure spending would worsen the situation. Yes, some infrastructure projects will be profitable. But the government will inevitably ensure the waste of a lot of money. To avoid higher interest payments on debt, Trump should respond to the Democrats by suggesting increasing the federal gas tax and increasing user fees on highways (tolls) and at airports ( selling fees).

Pelosi-Schumer's claim that any infrastructure project includes "initiatives in the broadband, water, energy, school, housing and other areas" is less impressive. The two largest congressional Democrats added, "We must also invest in the resilience and risk reduction of our existing infrastructure to deal with climate change."

Although investments in broadband offer advantages, initiatives "in the fields of water, energy, schools, housing and others" are presented as a wish list for new democratic projects for animals from company. I am absolutely not convinced that investing in these areas will create a legitimate expectation of return on investment. If this is not the case, state governments should take the initiative.

This is not a small concern. By spending people 's money in a bipartite way, we must give priority to accountability. All investments are not born equal. Trump should warn Democrats that this bill can not become a product of pork.

Trump should do the same thing even stronger in response to the third request of Democratic leaders. They say that an "ambitious and bold infrastructure plan must include strong protection, Buy America, unions, women, veterans and minority-owned businesses, in all areas".

Even if the warning about Buy America makes sense on the basis of marginal cost, if foreign competitors can offer cheaper and better materials, they should get the contract. But any infrastructure bill should also change the law to allow more competition in infrastructure-dependent industries. We should want foreign airlines to bid on American roads and foreign companies to deliver goods to the United States. There is no risk to net employment here: foreign companies interested in these opportunities should hire American workers.

That said, the main complaint that Trump had to make to Pelosi-Schumer should be their efforts to make a big profit to the unions and, through positive action, to play identity politics. Instead, the best companies should get the contracts at the most profitable level. Here, Trump should press for the elimination of the Davis-Bacon union gains law, which increases costs for taxpayers and acts as an indirect benefit for the Democratic Party (via union dues and the organization). By limiting opportunities to those who kneel before union leaders, Davis-Bacon restricts employment potential and fosters political corruption (bribes for contracts). It does not have its place in 2019 in America.

The Democrats have been clear in their letter. Trump should return the favor. In the search for a bipartisan bill that bears his signature, he must not let this bill become a wish list of democratic waste.