|
 For months, politicians and partisan groups in the nation’s
capital have been fiercely debating what does and doesn’t really count as
infrastructure. It’s a massive sticking point in negotiations between Democrats
and Republicans over the size and scope of a proposed infrastructure package
worth hundreds of billions – and possibly trillions – of dollars.
“Our biggest gap is not the money. Our biggest gap is defining what
infrastructure is,” U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told Fox News Sunday recently.
For their part, Republicans have issued infrastructure proposals ranging from
$568 billion to $928 billion, with a focus on roads, bridges, public transit and
better broadband access. The Biden administration, however, wants to go much
bigger and has brought proposals totaling $1.7 trillion to $2.3 trillion to the
table. Those infrastructure proposals also include many public policy changes,
such as changing local zoning requirements for the housing sector and the
federal preemption of some state labor laws.
President Joe Biden is facing pressure from members of his own party to get as
much as they can, while they can. As U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand famously
declared on social media: “Paid leave is infrastructure. Child care is
infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure.”
But if lawmakers are truly interested in finding some middle ground on what
should and shouldn’t be counted as infrastructure investment, they should
consider how business and civic leaders tackled this question in Colorado.
The Colorado Infrastructure Committee – a diverse coalition of business groups,
environmental organizations, university officials, state and local government
leaders and other community representatives – produced a comprehensive
infrastructure plan for our state during the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic.
I was one of the advisers to the committee and helped produce a report on their
findings, called Together We Build. To be sure, the committee wrestled with what
should and shouldn’t count as infrastructure for the purposes of their
recommendation, much like our leaders in Washington are doing right now.
But ultimately, the committee concluded that infrastructure investments are
those that support “the movement of people, goods, services, information and
ideas across Colorado.”
This standard was narrow enough for some members and broad enough for others to
keep almost everyone at the table, and it resulted in detailed recommendations
across five broad categories.
The first major category was transportation, which included investments in
roads, rail, aviation and mass transit. The second was water infrastructure,
including drinking water systems, wastewater treatment facilities and projects
to restore and maintain the health of our rivers in Colorado.
[ to
top of second column] |
The third major category was the environment, because our forests and parks
aren’t just aesthetic. They are major pieces of economic infrastructure,
supporting the state’s outdoor and tourism industries. This category also
included investments in the power grid to support the expansion of clean energy
and to maintain our energy security.
The fourth major category was broadband internet infrastructure to support local
commerce and communications, especially in rural areas and the underserved urban
communities of our state.
And finally, the fifth major category was education infrastructure. After the
tremendous disruption of the pandemic, people have a new appreciate for schools,
universities and other places where students go to learn – in person.
Transportation, water, environment, broadband and education – these were the
five pillars of the Colorado Infrastructure Committee’s recommendations. Across
those five categories, the committee identified and recommended investments in
Colorado that totaled between $16.95 billion and $20.25 billion.
That figure will be lower now, following last year’s passage of the Great
American Outdoors Act, which promises to clear a $574 million backlog of
deferred maintenance on the roads, bridges, tunnels, parking lots, visitor
centers, trails and camping sites in Colorado that allow residents and tourists
to access and enjoy our public lands.
But the five pillars – and more importantly, the collaborative process that
produced them – could provide a way out of the endless argument over what should
and shouldn’t be included in a national infrastructure package. And in dollar
terms, an infrastructure package that invests somewhere between $17 billion and
$20 billion in Colorado would have a national total of around $970 billion to
$1.14 trillion, based on our state’s share of the U.S. population.
I don’t mean to diminish the challenge in front of our federal representatives
in Washington. Assuming they can agree on the investments that should be
included in an infrastructure bill, they also have to agree on a way to pay for
those investments.
But as Colorado’s business and civic leaders have shown, there doesn’t have to
be endless argument over the definition of infrastructure. If our leaders truly
wish to find an agreement, there is a clear path to get there.
Simon Lomax is a researcher and adviser to free-enterprise groups
and business coalitions in energy, health care, education, housing and other
economic sectors. He is a former Bloomberg News reporter and a former
congressional fellow with the American Political Science Association. The views
expressed are his own.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article |
