Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) speak on the bipartisan infrastructure bill during a press conference at U.S. Capitol on August 04, 2021 in Washington, DC. The group of Senators criticized the bill for being too expensive and claim it will increase the debt, inflation and taxes. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
This Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Is a Drop in the Bucket of What Is Needed
Either we raise taxes on the rich and powerful, or we will drown in public debt with an outmoded infrastructure unfit for the 21st century.
Aug 10, 2021
The bipartisan infrastructure bill is making its way through the US Senate. This past weekend, 67 senators--including 18 Republicans--voted to cut off debate on the massive package, clearing the way for a final vote early this week. This kind of bipartisanship is heartening--and will lead to important investments in roads, bridges, rail, broadband internet and the electric grid. Yet the bill also thoroughly exposes the glaring problem with the Republican Party's opposition to additional taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
The bill is designed to satisfy the GOP's steadfast opposition to new taxes. To do so, the bipartisan group has exaggerated the new investments in the bill--as well as the revenues to pay for those investments.
First, the bipartisan bill addresses only a small part of our investment needs. And, second, it doesn't even pay for those investments through offsetting budget cuts or tax increases.
Let us unpack this numbers game, starting with America's investment needs. Our infrastructure is failing in three ways. First, much of it is old. Second, because of climate change, it is increasingly vulnerable to rising sea levels, storm surges, floods, droughts, heat waves, forest fires, extreme storms and other events. Third, it is outmoded. We need green (low-carbon) and digital infrastructure for climate safety and economic competitiveness in the 21st century.
This kind of infrastructure upgrade will cost trillions of dollars over the next decade. At the start of the year, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimated that cumulative US investment needs into 2029 are $6.1 trillion, but there is currently only $3.5 trillion in existing funds allocated for future spending--creating a shortfall of $2.6 trillion over a decade, or $260 billion per year. So far, that financing gap is translating into a deep and chronic shortfall of investment spending.
The federal government therefore has to increase the flow of investments--and find a way to pay for the increased outlays. While some Democrats would welcome offsetting cuts in military spending, the Republicans heatedly object. And while Republicans have tried repeatedly to cut social programs, most Democrats and the public want more, not less, social spending.
That leaves two ways to pay for the needed investments. One is deficit financing--or increasing the public debt. The problem here is that the budget deficit is already quite high, and the public debt has reached 100% of gross domestic product, the highest debt-GDP ratio since World War II.
The other way to finance infrastructure spending is by increasing taxes. Fortunately, with the stock market booming, corporations earning sky-high profits and the wealthiest Americans enjoying unprecedented wealth, the richest companies and Americans can carry much of the load. In addition, according to the Biden administration, with tax evasion running at an astounding $600 billion or more per year, tax enforcement can also help enormously.
Now we can see the problems with the bipartisan bill. First, the bipartisan bill addresses only a small part of our investment needs. And, second, it doesn't even pay for those investments through offsetting budget cuts or tax increases.
A new report by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office exposes these facts.
The legislation is portrayed as investing $1.2 trillion over the coming decade, or roughly $120 billion per year. Yet according to the CBO, the actual new discretionary investment spending is only $415 billion over 10 years. The rest is investment that was already on track to happen. In other words, the new spending falls far short of the investment gap identified by the ASCE.
The bipartisan group that negotiated the package claims the costs of the infrastructure package would be paid for by a combination of spending cuts and additional revenues. Yet, according to the CBO, the offsetting spending cuts are roughly $109 billion and the new revenues are only $50 billion, leaving $256 billion in increased deficits over the coming decade.
The size of the deficits, by itself, is not too worrisome: $256 billion over 10 years amounts to less than 0.1% of GDP over the 10-year period, according CBO projections. This is not a huge amount of borrowing. And yet Republicans are so allergic to any kind of taxation on the rich and powerful that they would not agree even to cover the very modest amount of new investment spending with increased taxes.
The GOP is trapped by a vacuous philosophy that corporations and the rich should never face tax increases. As such, it is against forcing companies to pay even a minimum tax to cover necessary updates to our infrastructure. It is against forcing the megabillionaires to pay even a minimal increase on their unimaginable wealth. And it is against even funding the IRS to crack down on tax frauds.
Get our free weekly newsletter
But without more tax revenues, public investments will continue to be a tiny shadow of what is needed. So, the Democrats need to pass a real investment package--by reconciliation, along a party-line vote, this fall. And this package should be financed by tax increases on corporations and the rich.
Let's reflect on the following. Federal tax revenues today are 17% of GDP, about the same level of receipts as 40 years ago despite the burgeoning costs of health care, higher education and housing; a rising environmental catastrophe; an aging population with higher Social Security outlays; old and outmoded infrastructure and tough international competition.
The Republicans have repeatedly handed massive tax cuts to corporations and the rich despite the crying need for new federal revenues. Either we raise taxes on the rich and powerful, or we will drown in public debt with an outmoded infrastructure unfit for the 21st century.
The upcoming reconciliation bill, not the bipartisan legislation, is our real hope.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Cable News Network
Jeffrey D. Sachs
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of "A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism" (2020). Other books include: "Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable" (2017) and "The Age of Sustainable Development," (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill is making its way through the US Senate. This past weekend, 67 senators--including 18 Republicans--voted to cut off debate on the massive package, clearing the way for a final vote early this week. This kind of bipartisanship is heartening--and will lead to important investments in roads, bridges, rail, broadband internet and the electric grid. Yet the bill also thoroughly exposes the glaring problem with the Republican Party's opposition to additional taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
The bill is designed to satisfy the GOP's steadfast opposition to new taxes. To do so, the bipartisan group has exaggerated the new investments in the bill--as well as the revenues to pay for those investments.
First, the bipartisan bill addresses only a small part of our investment needs. And, second, it doesn't even pay for those investments through offsetting budget cuts or tax increases.
Let us unpack this numbers game, starting with America's investment needs. Our infrastructure is failing in three ways. First, much of it is old. Second, because of climate change, it is increasingly vulnerable to rising sea levels, storm surges, floods, droughts, heat waves, forest fires, extreme storms and other events. Third, it is outmoded. We need green (low-carbon) and digital infrastructure for climate safety and economic competitiveness in the 21st century.
This kind of infrastructure upgrade will cost trillions of dollars over the next decade. At the start of the year, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimated that cumulative US investment needs into 2029 are $6.1 trillion, but there is currently only $3.5 trillion in existing funds allocated for future spending--creating a shortfall of $2.6 trillion over a decade, or $260 billion per year. So far, that financing gap is translating into a deep and chronic shortfall of investment spending.
The federal government therefore has to increase the flow of investments--and find a way to pay for the increased outlays. While some Democrats would welcome offsetting cuts in military spending, the Republicans heatedly object. And while Republicans have tried repeatedly to cut social programs, most Democrats and the public want more, not less, social spending.
That leaves two ways to pay for the needed investments. One is deficit financing--or increasing the public debt. The problem here is that the budget deficit is already quite high, and the public debt has reached 100% of gross domestic product, the highest debt-GDP ratio since World War II.
The other way to finance infrastructure spending is by increasing taxes. Fortunately, with the stock market booming, corporations earning sky-high profits and the wealthiest Americans enjoying unprecedented wealth, the richest companies and Americans can carry much of the load. In addition, according to the Biden administration, with tax evasion running at an astounding $600 billion or more per year, tax enforcement can also help enormously.
Now we can see the problems with the bipartisan bill. First, the bipartisan bill addresses only a small part of our investment needs. And, second, it doesn't even pay for those investments through offsetting budget cuts or tax increases.
A new report by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office exposes these facts.
The legislation is portrayed as investing $1.2 trillion over the coming decade, or roughly $120 billion per year. Yet according to the CBO, the actual new discretionary investment spending is only $415 billion over 10 years. The rest is investment that was already on track to happen. In other words, the new spending falls far short of the investment gap identified by the ASCE.
The bipartisan group that negotiated the package claims the costs of the infrastructure package would be paid for by a combination of spending cuts and additional revenues. Yet, according to the CBO, the offsetting spending cuts are roughly $109 billion and the new revenues are only $50 billion, leaving $256 billion in increased deficits over the coming decade.
The size of the deficits, by itself, is not too worrisome: $256 billion over 10 years amounts to less than 0.1% of GDP over the 10-year period, according CBO projections. This is not a huge amount of borrowing. And yet Republicans are so allergic to any kind of taxation on the rich and powerful that they would not agree even to cover the very modest amount of new investment spending with increased taxes.
The GOP is trapped by a vacuous philosophy that corporations and the rich should never face tax increases. As such, it is against forcing companies to pay even a minimum tax to cover necessary updates to our infrastructure. It is against forcing the megabillionaires to pay even a minimal increase on their unimaginable wealth. And it is against even funding the IRS to crack down on tax frauds.
Get our free weekly newsletter
But without more tax revenues, public investments will continue to be a tiny shadow of what is needed. So, the Democrats need to pass a real investment package--by reconciliation, along a party-line vote, this fall. And this package should be financed by tax increases on corporations and the rich.
Let's reflect on the following. Federal tax revenues today are 17% of GDP, about the same level of receipts as 40 years ago despite the burgeoning costs of health care, higher education and housing; a rising environmental catastrophe; an aging population with higher Social Security outlays; old and outmoded infrastructure and tough international competition.
The Republicans have repeatedly handed massive tax cuts to corporations and the rich despite the crying need for new federal revenues. Either we raise taxes on the rich and powerful, or we will drown in public debt with an outmoded infrastructure unfit for the 21st century.
The upcoming reconciliation bill, not the bipartisan legislation, is our real hope.
From Your Site Articles
Jeffrey D. Sachs
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of "A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism" (2020). Other books include: "Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable" (2017) and "The Age of Sustainable Development," (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill is making its way through the US Senate. This past weekend, 67 senators--including 18 Republicans--voted to cut off debate on the massive package, clearing the way for a final vote early this week. This kind of bipartisanship is heartening--and will lead to important investments in roads, bridges, rail, broadband internet and the electric grid. Yet the bill also thoroughly exposes the glaring problem with the Republican Party's opposition to additional taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
The bill is designed to satisfy the GOP's steadfast opposition to new taxes. To do so, the bipartisan group has exaggerated the new investments in the bill--as well as the revenues to pay for those investments.
First, the bipartisan bill addresses only a small part of our investment needs. And, second, it doesn't even pay for those investments through offsetting budget cuts or tax increases.
Let us unpack this numbers game, starting with America's investment needs. Our infrastructure is failing in three ways. First, much of it is old. Second, because of climate change, it is increasingly vulnerable to rising sea levels, storm surges, floods, droughts, heat waves, forest fires, extreme storms and other events. Third, it is outmoded. We need green (low-carbon) and digital infrastructure for climate safety and economic competitiveness in the 21st century.
This kind of infrastructure upgrade will cost trillions of dollars over the next decade. At the start of the year, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimated that cumulative US investment needs into 2029 are $6.1 trillion, but there is currently only $3.5 trillion in existing funds allocated for future spending--creating a shortfall of $2.6 trillion over a decade, or $260 billion per year. So far, that financing gap is translating into a deep and chronic shortfall of investment spending.
The federal government therefore has to increase the flow of investments--and find a way to pay for the increased outlays. While some Democrats would welcome offsetting cuts in military spending, the Republicans heatedly object. And while Republicans have tried repeatedly to cut social programs, most Democrats and the public want more, not less, social spending.
That leaves two ways to pay for the needed investments. One is deficit financing--or increasing the public debt. The problem here is that the budget deficit is already quite high, and the public debt has reached 100% of gross domestic product, the highest debt-GDP ratio since World War II.
The other way to finance infrastructure spending is by increasing taxes. Fortunately, with the stock market booming, corporations earning sky-high profits and the wealthiest Americans enjoying unprecedented wealth, the richest companies and Americans can carry much of the load. In addition, according to the Biden administration, with tax evasion running at an astounding $600 billion or more per year, tax enforcement can also help enormously.
Now we can see the problems with the bipartisan bill. First, the bipartisan bill addresses only a small part of our investment needs. And, second, it doesn't even pay for those investments through offsetting budget cuts or tax increases.
A new report by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office exposes these facts.
The legislation is portrayed as investing $1.2 trillion over the coming decade, or roughly $120 billion per year. Yet according to the CBO, the actual new discretionary investment spending is only $415 billion over 10 years. The rest is investment that was already on track to happen. In other words, the new spending falls far short of the investment gap identified by the ASCE.
The bipartisan group that negotiated the package claims the costs of the infrastructure package would be paid for by a combination of spending cuts and additional revenues. Yet, according to the CBO, the offsetting spending cuts are roughly $109 billion and the new revenues are only $50 billion, leaving $256 billion in increased deficits over the coming decade.
The size of the deficits, by itself, is not too worrisome: $256 billion over 10 years amounts to less than 0.1% of GDP over the 10-year period, according CBO projections. This is not a huge amount of borrowing. And yet Republicans are so allergic to any kind of taxation on the rich and powerful that they would not agree even to cover the very modest amount of new investment spending with increased taxes.
The GOP is trapped by a vacuous philosophy that corporations and the rich should never face tax increases. As such, it is against forcing companies to pay even a minimum tax to cover necessary updates to our infrastructure. It is against forcing the megabillionaires to pay even a minimal increase on their unimaginable wealth. And it is against even funding the IRS to crack down on tax frauds.
Get our free weekly newsletter
But without more tax revenues, public investments will continue to be a tiny shadow of what is needed. So, the Democrats need to pass a real investment package--by reconciliation, along a party-line vote, this fall. And this package should be financed by tax increases on corporations and the rich.
Let's reflect on the following. Federal tax revenues today are 17% of GDP, about the same level of receipts as 40 years ago despite the burgeoning costs of health care, higher education and housing; a rising environmental catastrophe; an aging population with higher Social Security outlays; old and outmoded infrastructure and tough international competition.
The Republicans have repeatedly handed massive tax cuts to corporations and the rich despite the crying need for new federal revenues. Either we raise taxes on the rich and powerful, or we will drown in public debt with an outmoded infrastructure unfit for the 21st century.
The upcoming reconciliation bill, not the bipartisan legislation, is our real hope.
From Your Site Articles
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.