Infrastructure consists of an extensive network of bridges, dams, highways, and utilities, which are essential for connecting people, goods, and services throughout a nation. Recently, America’s infrastructure has become a hot topic due to its aging condition and the numerous issues that have emerged. There is a general agreement across political lines that the existing approach to infrastructure repair and maintenance needs a major overhaul. However, opinions differ on the methods and funding strategies for such an endeavor. A prime example of these challenges is the recent Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA), proposed by the Biden administration. This act illustrates the complexities involved in defining and tackling various infrastructure issues. After considerable bipartisan negotiations and adjustments to address opposition concerns, the bill finally garnered enough support to pass. This represents a notable instance of cooperation in an otherwise complex and polarized area of policy discussion.

Arguments in Favor

Supporters of the bill highlight two major concerns related to the aging infrastructure in the United States:

• The immediate and impending risk of infrastructure failures leading to humanitarian crises. Recent examples include the breakdown of transportation and plumbing systems in New York City during the severe flooding caused by Hurricane Ida, and the catastrophic structural collapse of a condominium in Surfside, Florida.
• The escalating impact of climate change, which intensifies the likelihood of infrastructure failures. This places an even greater burden on already overstretched systems that may not be adequately prepared to handle extreme weather events and other unprecedented challenges.

Advocates of the bill argue that numerous recent infrastructure disasters, exacerbated or caused by climate change, underscore the urgency of their position. They reference incidents like the 2022 water crisis in Jackson, Mississippi, to emphasize the impact on the accessibility and safety of basic necessities for everyday Americans. The human and material losses resulting from such disasters highlight the humanitarian dimension of the infrastructure issue. Supporters also draw attention to data on infrastructure maintenance, noting that out of approximately 591,000 bridges in America, about 27% are considered structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. This statistic is used to illustrate the immediate risk posed by the nation’s infrastructure, much of which dates back to the 1950s.

Proponents of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) address concerns about the bill’s $1.2 trillion price tag by emphasizing the economic benefits it would bring. They point out that the bill will create new construction jobs with a focus on diversity, which are expected to positively impact both local and federal economies.

Arguments Against

Opposition to the bill primarily focuses on its high cost, the means of funding it, and the feasibility of its implementation. Critics in Congress point to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) could increase the national debt by up to $256 billion over a decade. There is also concern about the tax implications of the bill, which necessitates $550 billion in new expenditures. This amount is proposed to be covered through a combination of tax increases, reallocation of unused COVID relief funds, and other government revenues.

Some adversaries of the bill suggest an alternative approach to funding infrastructure reform, advocating for a “user-pays” system. This would involve raising the gas tax to generate the required funds, placing the financial burden directly on consumers. Furthering this perspective, another analysis references the 2010 National Broadband Plan as a case study. This plan successfully expanded broadband infrastructure using incentivized private funding, without the need for any tax increases. This example is used to argue for the viability of private investment as a funding source for infrastructure projects, avoiding additional tax burdens on the public.

Conclusion

The numerous and varied arguments surrounding the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) played a significant role in shaping the infrastructure debate. Although the taxing methods debated were not ultimately incorporated into this legislation, they present potential avenues for future infrastructure funding. The successful passage of the IIJA sets a precedent for further collaboration and progress on this vital and often contentious topic. This development indicates a possibility for more concerted efforts and innovative solutions in addressing America’s infrastructure challenges in the future.