评论：特朗普的基建计划是个谎言

唐纳德·特朗普总统宣称，在联邦政府2000亿美元投资撬动下，今后10年私营行业将为基础设施再投入近1.5万亿美元资金。这就是特朗普早就做出承诺并在2月12日披露的“规划”的精要所在。

但就像以前大家看到的那样，当总统制定宏伟计划并声称会有人掏钱的时候，他就是在骗我们。

特朗普的基础设施规划要靠各州和各城市出台规模达1000亿美元的大型配套项目，其余资金则来自500亿美元的农村投资计划以及其他一些单列项目。此举旨在鼓励私营公司挺身而出，让重建美国的投资达到1.5万亿美元的水平。

就像墨西哥不会为边境墙出钱一样，私人投资者也不会仅仅因为总统这么说就向道路、桥梁和能源基础设施撒钱。这种做法并不能把联邦政府的责任转移给私人企业。

原因之一就是，此项规划的时间跨度为10年。也就是说每年投入的资金只有200亿美元，只有上周国会通过的国防预算增幅的四分之一。这远远不够。

私人投资者只关心一件事，那就是利润最大化。赚不到足够的钱，项目就无法吸他们，无论这些项目是多么的有必要。

即便项目真的付诸实施，私人投资者也还是需要利润，也就是说新建基础设施的成本往往会以过路费或其他收费的形式转嫁出去——有时候，这些费用会非常高。这就打破了人们常挂在嘴边的神话，即私人出资项目对纳税人来说更有利。作为对公司的另一“馈赠”，此番规划可能促成大型基建设施（比如说，华盛顿罗纳德·里根国家机场）的挂牌转让，还有可能放松旨在保护当地社区的环境法规。

这个基建方案本身甚至都站不住脚。它是一项预算案的一部分，而该预算案还要把用于其他项目和服务的联邦支出削减掉480亿美元，每年区区200亿美元的基建投资无法跟那些削减的费用相提并论。同时，总统再次要求彻底取消社区发展大宗拨款计划，并大幅压缩划拨给铁路公司Amtrak、超级基金治理污染以及其他项目的资金。大家还是相信这项规划会让美国倒霉吧。

相比之下，在国会促进核心小组去年提出的预算案中，基础设施投资规模提高了10倍，也就是在10年中投入公共资金2万亿美元，而且可能产生较少的赤字。

该预算案中的项目之一是投资3500亿美元建设饮用水管道，以确保今后几年不会再出现密歇根州弗林特市饮用水危机那样的事件。光这一个项目动用的公共资金就超过了特朗普刚刚提出的整个基建方案。

那么其中的奥妙在哪里呢？国会促进核心小组的提案通过对亿万富翁多征税以及堵上公司税漏洞来筹集国内投资资金，并在同时削减赤字。这和特朗普的减税计划恰好相反（特朗普减税的规模达到甚至超过了1.5万亿美元，本该足以为他的整个基建规划直接提供资金）。

总统和国会不愿通过这些简单的途径来为实实在在的基建投资筹集资金，这有失颜面。私人投资者将拿出比1万亿美元还要多很多的资金来让我们过得更好八成也是天方夜谭。而且就算他们这样做了，我们最终还是要为他们贡献利润。

所以请记住，除非你想饿肚子或者买单，否则总统请你到外面吃晚饭时可别答应他。（财富中文网）

作者林赛·科什格里安是美国政策研究学会国家优先项目负责人。

译者：Charlie

审校：夏林

President Donald Trump claims that a $200 billion investment by the federal government will lead to nearly $1.5 trillion in new infrastructure spending—when it’s leveraged in the private sector over 10 years. That’s the gist of the long-promised “plan” he released on Feb. 12.

But as we’ve seen before, when the president makes big plans and claims that someone else will pay, he’s scamming us.

Trump’s infrastructure plan hinges on a $100 billion matching grant program for states and cities to launch their own projects, with additional funds coming from a $50 billion rural investment program, along with a few other line items. That’s supposed to entice private companies to come out of the woodwork and rebuild America to the tune of $1.5 trillion.

Just like Mexico won’t pay for a border wall, private investors won’t pay for roads, bridges, and energy infrastructure just because the president says they will. Kicking federal obligations to private companies doesn’t work that way.

For one thing, the plan spreads those investments out over 10 years. At just $20 billion a year, that’s just a quarter of the $80 billion raise for next year’s Pentagon budget that Congress passed just last week. It’s nowhere near enough.

Private investors care about only one thing, and that’s maximizing profit. They won’t be drawn to projects that won’t make them enough money, no matter how badly needed the projects are.

And even for projects that do materialize, private investors’ need for profit means the costs of building new infrastructure are often passed along in the form of road tolls or other fees—sometimes, these can be exorbitant. This dispels the commonly held myth that privately financed projects are always a better deal for taxpayers. As another corporate giveaway, the plan would encourage putting major public infrastructure (like, say, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport) up for sale, and would loosen environmental rules designed to protect local communities.

The infrastructure proposal doesn’t even exist on its own. It came as part of a budget package that would also cut $48 billion in federal funding for other programs and services that won’t be matched by a paltry $20 billion per year in infrastructure investments. Among other things, the president once again called for the total elimination of the Community Development Block Grant program, and major cuts to Amtrak, Superfund environmental cleanups, and other programs. You better believe that Americans would suffer under this plan.

By comparison, last year’s proposed budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus called for 10 times as much infrastructure investment—$2 trillion in public investment over 10 years—and would have reduced the deficit to boot.

One initiative under that plan would set aside $350 billion for drinking water pipes to ensure we don’t have another Flint, Michigan-style water crisis in a few years. This single initiative offered more public funds than the entire infrastructure plan Trump just rolled out.

The secret? The progressive plan raises the funds to invest in America and tamp down the deficit at the same time by raising taxes on billionaires and closing corporate tax loopholes—the exact opposite approach of the Trump tax plan (which, at a cost of $1.5 trillion or more, would have been enough to fund his entire infrastructure plan directly).

It’s a shame that the president and Congress aren’t willing to make these simple choices to fund real infrastructure investments. It’s probably a fantasy that private investors will step up to the tune of well over $1 trillion to make all of our lives better. And even in the cases where they do, we’ll be the ones ultimately paying for their profits.

So remember: If the president offers to take you out to dinner, don’t accept unless you’re ready to either go hungry or foot the bill.