We cannot let GOP partisanship derail infrastructure investments

Life is challenging enough for infrastructure “czar” Mitch Landrieu as he works to implement the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). He could certainly have lived without an extra helping of partisanship. 

But in these polarized times, it is not surprising that partisan politics has once again raised its head. 

The partisanship in this case is Republican. On Jan. 19, 16 GOP governors sent a letter to President Biden in response to a Jan. 4 outreach letter that Landrieu addressed to all 50 governors. Landrieu asked them to name state-level infrastructure coordinators whose job would be to assist with implementation. 

The coordinators’ role is modeled on that of the state-level recovery coordinators who helped implement the 2009 American Investment and Recovery Act. In a similar fashion, according to the Landrieu letter, state infrastructure coordinators would “work with [the state’s] budget team and across departments… to coordinate implementation of the various infrastructure programs.” 

With $1.2 trillion expected to be deployed in the coming eight years, clear, objective and long-term planning is, as I have argued, essential, because the hope of improving American productivity for the coming decade goes well beyond one single administration. Landrieu’s request, therefore, makes perfect sense. 

In response, the governors laid out an array of suggested limitations and constraints — arguing for sharp reductions in federal oversight and in regulation “to truly drive economic growth” and asking for what is effectively a free hand in spending federal funds as they see fit. They went farther. 

“Excessive consideration of equity, union membership or climate as lenses to view suitable projects would be counterproductive,” they wrote. “Your administration should not attempt to push a social agenda through hard infrastructure investments and instead should consider economically sound principles that align with state priorities.”

Economically sound principles are necessary and not all their arguments are without merit. For example, there is a case to be made for streamlined regulatory review under “One Federal Decision,” as the governors suggest. But neither the strident tone nor many of the specifics are helpful. Worse, the governors undermine the bipartisanship that drove the creation and passage of the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act in the first place, and the rationalism and rigorous data analysis that can and should drive all infrastructure investment. 

The partisanship apparent in the governors’ letter is in no way exclusive to Republicans, of course. Before its passage, the act was nearly scuttled by progressive Democrats who insisted that it be tied to much larger and more controversial social spending legislation. It’s worth noting as well that there may also be a politically pragmatic, not just ideological side to the Republican governors’ program. Complicating and delaying the distribution of funding, which is front-loaded, slows implementation and denies Democrats a political advantage. The end result is equally partisan, of course. 

The real point is this — partisanship on both sides continually threatens to derail the largest infrastructure investment in a generation. Such gamesmanship not only puts at risk the implementation of the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act but also threatens the economic growth and prosperity that our massive infrastructure investment can and must achieve. 

The governors’ ideological objection to climate-focused projects is a case in point. We know that climate represents a political fault line — it is a Republican non-starter. But we also know that climate — and the severe weather it drives — has a significant economic impact. 

A single event — the power grid failure caused the 2021 Texas ice storm — caused over $125 billion in damage as well as over 200 deaths. Investment to strengthen the grid and other infrastructure to make it climate resilient makes profound economic sense. So does infrastructure investment that addresses the root cause — climate change. To exclude such investments because they are categorized as “climate” is absurd. 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, as well Florida Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott — all Republicans — have been strong supporters of infrastructure investment to support water preservation and saving the Everglades. This is directly related to climate change but it is also a sound economic decision. 

Similarly, there is a body of knowledge about the impact of infrastructure investment on poverty. In China, which spends 8 percent of its GDP on infrastructure (in contrast to our 1 percent), poverty declined by 94 percent between 1980 and 2015. Investing in infrastructure can increase economic growth and help reduce inequality and alleviate poverty. The two need not be mutually exclusive. The linkage makes sense — infrastructure investment drives growth and particular kinds of investments, for example in transit and broadband, make jobs more accessible and support businesses, including small businesses and startups. But the governors’ letter suggests they might well oppose many of these investments as “pushing a social agenda.” Here again, such ideology directly undermines prospects for growth. 

What the governors’ letter tells us — together with all the other partisanship that has continually put the act at risk — is that we must separate infrastructure planning and investment from short-term political cycles. Landrieu’s call for state-level coordinators is a start toward reason. So is the formation of a White House advisory board to help guide the allocation of funds. But ultimately, we must do more. 

I have long advocated the creation of an Infrastructure Bank — a not-for-profit institution independent of government and separate from the politically driven appropriations cycle that, at a massive scale, would bring together both public funds and private investment and direct them to infrastructure projects chosen on a rational basis. The bank would serve not only as a funding source but also as a project clearinghouse and a source of expertise for state and local governments. 

Short of such a long-term institutional solution, Landrieu is setting the right course. As for the 16 GOP governors, they should take inspiration from the bipartisan working group that framed the Jobs Act, and the 19 Republican senators who voted for it. 

Infrastructure is a bipartisan need. And bipartisanship is the way to realize the promise of this historic infrastructure investment. 

Sadek Wahba, Ph.D. is a member of the Wilson Center’s Global Advisory Council, a nonpartisan policy forum for tackling global issues, and a senior fellow at the Development Research Institute, NYU. He is also Chairman of I Squared Capital. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of these organizations.