Infrastructure plan will be a tough sell
President Donald Trump released his long-promised national infrastructure plan last week, and it was promptly obscured by his own federal budget proposal — released on the same day — and an intense immigration debate in the U.S. Senate.
What was supposed to be “infrastructure week” in Washington was further disrupted by yet another internal White House crisis, this one triggered by domestic abuse allegations against a top aide. Washington ended the week absorbing news of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s announcement on Friday of 13 indictments against Russian nationals for meddling in the 2016 elections.
Meanwhile, the House and Senate went home for their traditional week-long President’s Day recess this weekend and won’t return to work in Washington until the week of Feb. 26. When I asked one top Republican staffer on Capitol Hill about plans to take up Trump’s infrastructure plan, the aide’s first reaction was that it wasn’t even on the radar.
But just because the president’s proposal received scant attention upon its rollout doesn’t mean it won’t get some play in the weeks and months ahead. The White House — eager to add another achievement to the passage of major tax reform in December — is likely recruiting GOP lawmakers to carry Trump’s infrastructure plans to Capitol Hill. It’ll be a tough sell with Democrats, but Republicans, including Rep. Steve Pearce of New Mexico, generally praised the president’s proposal even while voicing some concern about paying for it.
Trump’s proposal calls for $1.5 trillion to spruce up American highways, bridges, airports, rail, telecommunications and other infrastructure. The White House suggested Congress pony up $200 billion in federal money, which could be used to match funds with cities and states on major projects. The proposal also suggests significant deregulation to speed environmental approvals.
Capitol Hill Democrats — including most in New Mexico’s delegation — trashed the Trump plan. They characterized it as giveaway to private industry, an egregious rollback of environmental regulations, and too heavy a burden for cash-strapped states and cities. Sen. Tom Udall, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, called the plan “a wasted opportunity … that is completely off the mark when it comes to the needs of large rural states like New Mexico.”
Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-N.M., said Trump’s plan “rests on the fallacy that we can shift the vast majority of the financial burden onto cash-strapped state and local governments.”
But one conservative Democrat with a deep stake in the infrastructure game — state Sen. John Arthur Smith, who chairs in the Senate Finance Committee in the New Mexico Legislature — was not so quick to dismiss the proposal. In fact, in the waning days of the 30-day session Smith introduced a bill that would raise New Mexico’s gasoline tax by a nickel in the event — and only in the event — that Congress passed Trump’s plan. The idea is that New Mexico would have some cash on hand — $73 million per year if the nickel gas tax hike passed — for road and bridge improvements if the president’s plan became a reality.
Smith’s bill cleared the state Senate easily but didn’t get a vote in the House before the 30-day session adjourned last week. In an interview Friday, Smith suggested Washington politicians not be so quick to reject a federal proposal to meet states halfway on infrastructure projects.
“We talk about a federal balanced budget, but yet we keep harping for money from the feds,” Smith said. “I think the state has a responsibility to step to the plate also. I don’t think this state or any state should be out with their hands out all the time. I think the state has to be a player also.”
Smith wanted me to be clear — he is not a Trump supporter. But he thinks his infrastructure plan is at least worth a look.
“I think it’s a responsible plan,” Smith said. “I travel the roads as much as anybody, and I don’t disagree with him on the infrastructure needs.”