Infrastructure law generates huge amounts of money, but little political benefit: NPR

WASHINGTON — Three years after President Biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Biden administration has given it a new name: “The Big Deal.”

There’s no question that’s a lot of money, with more than $1 trillion spent on roads, bridges, airports, railroads, ports, and more.

But for all that investment, the White House has reaped surprisingly little political benefit.

“You know, I don’t think that happened,” said Ray LaHood, a Republican who served as transportation secretary in the Obama administration. “I was in shock.”

During the first Trump administration, Infrastructure Week became a daily joke in Washington. President Biden has taken this seriously, betting that voters will reward him for delivering on policies that other administrations have failed to deliver.

But this month, that gamble went unpopular with voters, who appeared to have less trust in Democrats.

“The most important thing is that the project actually gets completed,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in an interview at the Department of Transportation this week. “From a national perspective, it’s more important that they get it done than who gets the credit.”

Over the past three years, Buttigieg has spent much of his time on the road, attending ribbon cuttings and groundbreaking ceremonies for projects across the country. DOT announced $570 billion in Infrastructure Act funding for more than 66,000 projects in all 50 states. They range from $400 million to shore up the Golden Gate Bridge to $1 million for a new terminal at a small airport in Chamberlain, South Dakota.

“It’s everything from these backyard projects to America’s infrastructure cathedral,” Buttigieg said.

Addressing Friday’s anniversary, President Biden called the legislation “the biggest investment in our nation’s infrastructure in a generation” in a post on X. “That day we proved that if we work, we can accomplish great things.”Together. “

So why aren’t these investments resonating with voters?

Buttigieg argues part of the problem is timing. “Some of these projects can be done quickly, but many of them, by their nature, are projects that will take the better part of a decade,” he said. “So it will be a long time before the ribbon cutting takes place.”

There are several other theories as to why the message didn’t get through. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, called the infrastructure law a “huge success,” but said voters were more concerned about inflation.

“People are paying a lot more for groceries, rent and gas than they were a few years ago, so whatever you do is good, it’s just going to be overshadowed by the reality of higher inflation,” Zandi said. he said.

Some say the infrastructure law was not ambitious enough.

“These investments aren’t producing results that people are excited about,” said Beth Osborne, director of the nonprofit Transportation for America, which recently released a report on the climate impacts of infrastructure laws. says Mr.

Mr Osborne said: “We have just published a report showing that emissions are being said to be reduced, but that is not happening.”

There’s also the theory that the Biden and Kamala Harris campaigns didn’t talk enough about the infrastructure law and the jobs it’s already creating.

“I think they should have focused more on infrastructure bills and jobs. That would have resonated with voters,” said Lahoud, a former transportation secretary and Illinois congressman. “There are a lot of people working and there are a lot of orange cones on the highway.”

In 2021, 19 Republicans in the Senate and 13 Republicans in the House supported infrastructure legislation. But many more voted against it, arguing that it was too packed with ancillary projects.

“This bill, this $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, is not real infrastructure,” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) said in an interview on Fox.

Two years later, Mace is happily celebrating the construction of a new public transportation hub in her district.

Speaking at a press conference for the project, she said: “What do you want me to do? Turn my back on the lowlands when I can get funding for public transport? Absolutely not.” .

Mace wasn’t the only Republican to vote against infrastructure legislation only to later take credit for its accomplishments. Transportation Secretary Buttigieg said it was sometimes frustrating to watch. And he expects that to continue to happen.

“I think the entire government is going to do that, because of course the next president opposed this infrastructure policy, but I think we’re going to have no hesitation in celebrating what was accomplished because of it,” Buttigieg said. he said. Said.

Buttigieg said the DOT is working hard to speed up the grant-making process to ensure funding continues to flow to these projects. He worries that the Trump administration may try to take some of the funding back in the future, but he hopes that doesn’t happen.

“I still believe that the jobs and infrastructure that is being created is going to be very beneficial to a lot of people, so it’s going to be hard for ideologues to counteract these good efforts,” Buttigieg said. “That’s why it was bipartisan in the first place.”

Buttigieg argues that the infrastructure law’s legacy will last for decades to come. But some worry that the political lessons will remain as well.

“It’s going to be hard to accomplish anything big,” Lahoud said.

Economist Mark Zandi said: “We need better infrastructure. We should continue to invest.” “But it’s going to be difficult to do this politically, because legislators are aware of what’s going on here, but it’s not being appreciated.”