They don’t agree on much.
But Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both want government to help fix the many crumbling US roads, bridges and ports as well as improve energy and internet systems — soon.
The New York Times has summarized their plans this way:
“Mrs. Clinton has said that if she is elected president, her administration will seek to spend $250 billion over five years on repairing and improving the nation’s infrastructure … ports, roads, bridges, energy systems and high-speed broadband — and would put an additional $25 billion toward a national infrastructure bank to spur related business investments. Mr. Trump said he wanted to go even bigger, saying his administration would spend at least twice as much as Mrs. Clinton.
“Mr.Trump, taking a page from liberal economists, said he would fund his plan by borrowing several hundred billion dollars, but has offered no specifics. Mrs. Clinton’s more detailed proposal, by contrast, would be paid for by a business tax overhaul aimed at collecting additional revenue from companies that have parked assets abroad.”
But The Times also cited the formidable obstacles to achieving such plans:
“These are only plans, of course. Either would have to get through Congress and the inevitable acrimony over any proposal to raise taxes or add to the national debt.”
Still, many economists (not known for rosy projections) — and many millions of U.S. citizens — are hoping that bilateral common sense will at last “dynamite” Washington D. C. gridlock
on infrastructure improvement. They point to long-term benefits in a resulting sustained lift for the economy: addition of many higher-wage blue-collar jobs; spending on products like concrete and steel; and commerce-boosting efficiencies in the nation’s energy, transportation and internet systems.
Who could be against that?