唐納德·特朗普總統宣稱，在聯邦政府2000億美元投資撬動下，今后10年私營行業將為基礎設施再投入近1.5萬億美元資金。這就是特朗普早就做出承諾并在2月12日披露的“規劃”的精要所在。

但就像以前大家看到的那樣，當總統制定宏偉計劃并聲稱會有人掏錢的時候，他就是在騙我們。

特朗普的基礎設施規劃要靠各州和各城市出臺規模達1000億美元的大型配套項目，其余資金則來自500億美元的農村投資計劃以及其他一些單列項目。此舉旨在鼓勵私營公司挺身而出，讓重建美國的投資達到1.5萬億美元的水平。

就像墨西哥不會為邊境墻出錢一樣，私人投資者也不會僅僅因為總統這么說就向道路、橋梁和能源基礎設施撒錢。這種做法并不能把聯邦政府的責任轉移給私人企業。

原因之一就是，此項規劃的時間跨度為10年。也就是說每年投入的資金只有200億美元，只有上周國會通過的國防預算增幅的四分之一。這遠遠不夠。

私人投資者只關心一件事，那就是利潤最大化。賺不到足夠的錢，項目就無法吸他們，無論這些項目是多么的有必要。

即便項目真的付諸實施，私人投資者也還是需要利潤，也就是說新建基礎設施的成本往往會以過路費或其他收費的形式轉嫁出去——有時候，這些費用會非常高。這就打破了人們常掛在嘴邊的神話，即私人出資項目對納稅人來說更有利。作為對公司的另一“饋贈”，此番規劃可能促成大型基建設施（比如說，華盛頓羅納德·里根國家機場）的掛牌轉讓，還有可能放松旨在保護當地社區的環境法規。

這個基建方案本身甚至都站不住腳。它是一項預算案的一部分，而該預算案還要把用于其他項目和服務的聯邦支出削減掉480億美元，每年區區200億美元的基建投資無法跟那些削減的費用相提并論。同時，總統再次要求徹底取消社區發展大宗撥款計劃，并大幅壓縮劃撥給鐵路公司Amtrak、超級基金治理污染以及其他項目的資金。大家還是相信這項規劃會讓美國倒霉吧。

相比之下，在國會促進核心小組去年提出的預算案中，基礎設施投資規模提高了10倍，也就是在10年中投入公共資金2萬億美元，而且可能產生較少的赤字。

該預算案中的項目之一是投資3500億美元建設飲用水管道，以確保今后幾年不會再出現密歇根州弗林特市飲用水危機那樣的事件。光這一個項目動用的公共資金就超過了特朗普剛剛提出的整個基建方案。

那么其中的奧妙在哪里呢？國會促進核心小組的提案通過對億萬富翁多征稅以及堵上公司稅漏洞來籌集國內投資資金，并在同時削減赤字。這和特朗普的減稅計劃恰好相反（特朗普減稅的規模達到甚至超過了1.5萬億美元，本該足以為他的整個基建規劃直接提供資金）。

總統和國會不愿通過這些簡單的途徑來為實實在在的基建投資籌集資金，這有失顏面。私人投資者將拿出比1萬億美元還要多很多的資金來讓我們過得更好八成也是天方夜譚。而且就算他們這樣做了，我們最終還是要為他們貢獻利潤。

所以請記住，除非你想餓肚子或者買單，否則總統請你到外面吃晚飯時可別答應他。（財富中文網）

作者林賽·科什格里安是美國政策研究學會國家優先項目負責人。

譯者：Charlie

審校：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.