Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Puts Burden on State and Private Money<br />President Trump’s $200 billion plan to rebuild America upends the criteria<br />that have long been used to pick ambitious federal projects, putting little emphasis on how much an infrastructure proposal benefits the public and more on finding private investors and other outside sources of money.<br />“Instead of the public sector deciding on public needs and public priorities, the projects<br />that are most attractive to private investors are the ones that will go to the head of the line,” said Elliott Sclar, professor of urban planning and international affairs at Columbia University.<br />The White House budget, separately released on Monday, also gives federal agencies the authority to sell assets<br />that would be better managed by state, local or private entities in cases where a sale would “optimize taxpayer value.” The budget suggests that Ronald Reagan Washington National and Dulles International Airports could be among the assets ripe for new owners.<br />One analysis by the Penn-Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania said<br />that other pieces of the White House budget could end up reducing federal infrastructure spending by $55 billion over 10 years — despite the president’s new plan.<br />“Now, they’re putting out incentive programs that don’t have to generate national or regional economic developments,” said Ms.<br />Knopman, the lead author of a new 110-page RAND report on transportation and water infrastructure in the United States.<br />In this new competition for federal funds, a plan to, say, build a better access road for a luxury development — a project with<br />the potential to bring in more dollars from private investors — could have a strong chance of getting the green light.<br />He said Utah was already looking for new sources of tax revenue to fund projects because sales tax and gas tax revenue had been declining.
