The Biden Infrastructure Bungle

Economy |
By Aaron Hedlund | Read Time 4 minutes minutes

Following on the heels of its $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, the Biden administration just unveiled another multitrillion-dollar spending plan, this time notionally aimed at fixing America’s infrastructure needs. Unfortunately, the “American Jobs Plan” is just as much a misnomer as the “American Rescue Plan,” in that it does more to push liberal political goals than to light a fire under the economic recovery or long-term growth.

America’s infrastructure needs are genuine and significant. Investment in basic infrastructure (power, transportation, water supply, etc.) has failed or barely kept up with depreciation, leaving the country with an aging infrastructure stock with dwindling years of remaining service life. Moreover, although the United States spends roughly the same on infrastructure as it did in 1956 in inflation-adjusted per capita terms, it gets less bang for the buck today. In particular, the cost per mile of interstate construction has more than tripled in inflation-adjusted terms since the 1960s.

This combination of flat spending and rising costs means less actual new infrastructure. Worse yet, costs vary widely across states. From 1956 to 1993, high-cost states spent more than $8.8 million more per mile of interstate than low-cost states, and $3.3 million of this differential is due to factors under policymaker control. Thus, rather than measuring the ambition of a bill by the sticker shock of its price tag, a superior metric is to evaluate the quantity and quality of infrastructure it is likely to produce and what spillovers it will generate for economic productivity. On both counts, the Biden Administration’s plan falls far short.

First, the composition of spending in the bill appears not to have gone through any credible cost–benefit analysis to determine where best to allocate scarce (or not so scarce, given the size of the bill) dollars. For example, the American Society of Civil Engineers reports that 20 percent of the more than 4 million miles of roads in the United States are in poor condition; the same report estimates a nearly $800 billion backlog of maintenance and repair needs. Why, then, does only 5 percent of the bill (see Figure 1) go to roads and bridges, only promising to fix 20,000 miles worth of road? Moreover, why spend nearly the same amount on public transportation even though only 5 percent of people rely on it to get to work? The bill also includes Medicaid expansion of home and community-based services (HCBS) masquerading as “infrastructure.” The administration every right to make its case for a “care economy” agenda, but simply calling it infrastructure to piggyback off of the popularity of spending on roads and bridges does not make it so.

Cost breakdown

Figure 1

Secondly, and more egregiously, the American Jobs Plan’s prevailing wage, project labor agreement, and PRO Act provisions are a huge giveaway to unions that would likely raise costs, reduce growth, tilt the playing field, and overturn the will of voters in states that passed right-to-work laws to safeguard worker freedoms. The practical effect of these measures will be to reduce the number of infrastructure projects that can get completed for a given amount of spending and to needlessly harm economic performance through the elimination of worker freedom protections.

Lastly, the Biden plan partly finances the eye-popping $2.3 trillion price tag by raising the corporate income tax, thereby undermining the very competitiveness that infrastructure investment is supposed to enhance. Even the administration tacitly admits the harm such a tax hike will cause for the economy, offering only to beg other countries to raise their own taxes to prevent them from attracting companies looking for friendlier business environments in what the Biden administration misleadingly calls a “race to the bottom.” It’s hard to imagine any countries taking us up on the offer. In all fairness, the American Jobs Plan does promise workers whose jobs are displaced counseling and case management services, though many will unsurprisingly prefer to keep their job instead.

In sum, America’s infrastructure could use a jolt of investment, but the spending priorities in the bill are off target and in many cases unrelated to true infrastructure. The bill is littered with union giveaways that will raise costs and reduce the quantity of new infrastructure that could otherwise be produced, and the promised corporate tax hikes counteract the same economic growth that infrastructure spending aims to ignite. But it’s not too late. The Biden administration should learn from previous mistakes, when the Obama stimulus failed to improve the nation’s highways, and instead refocus on a pro-growth and fiscally responsible approach to solving America’s pressing infrastructure needs.

About the Author

Aaron Hedlund is an associate professor with tenure in the Mitch Daniels School of Business at Purdue University, as well as a research fellow at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. From 2020 to 2021, Hedlund was the Chief Domestic Economist and Senior Adviser at the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). Before joining the CEA, he was also the Acting Director of Academic Outreach and Senior Fellow at the Center for Growth and Opportunity. His other public policy experiences include stints at the Heritage Foundation and the International Trade Commission as well as service in senior state-level advisory roles. Hedlund's research focuses on the intersection of macroeconomics, finance, real estate, and labor. Some of the topics he has studied extensively include the causes and consequences of housing booms and busts, the forces driving up college tuition and student debt, and the macroeconomic implications of China's economic transformation. He has also written and spoken extensively on market-oriented reforms to the tax code and healthcare system. In addition to appearing in peer-reviewed academic journals, Hedlund's work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal and National Review, has been used as expert testimony in state-level policy initiatives, and has been presented at numerous think tanks, academic institutions, and central banks both in and outside of the United States. Hedlund received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Pennsylvania and his Bachelor's in economics and mathematics from Duke University. <b>Aaron is currently on a leave of absence and serving as the Chief Economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers.<b>

Similar Stories

Support Us

Headline to go here about the good with supporting us.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging