Photo by Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post/Getty Images

On Tuesday, news broke that President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had agreed in principle to produce a legislative package to spend $2 trillion on infrastructure.

In response, Heritage transportation analyst David Ditch and Heritage economist Nick Loris, released the following statement:

“Americans deserve better roads, stronger bridges, modernized airports, and a more robust energy grid. Heritage has outlined ways to produce over $1 trillion in new infrastructure investment without tax increases or deficit spending.

“Any infrastructure package must be fiscally responsible and include long-lasting regulatory reforms that allow projects to be completed in a timely manner. A fiscally responsible bill should have spending offsets to pay for new projects. In addition, it should narrow the federal role by eliminating funding for projects with purely local benefits, and wasteful projects such as bike paths and mass transit.

“A massive, top-down, federally-funded approach to infrastructure is the wrong path to take and would likely result in poor investments that are not aligned with the day-to-day needs of Americans. Furthermore, unchecked spending only makes the federal debt crisis even worse.

“The nation deserves better than yet another cash-grab that would increase the power of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”

Read the statement on

If Congress offers President Trump a wasteful spending bill similar to Obama’s 2009 “Stimulus Package,” do you expect him to veto it, and why?

Comments (45)

charles Garber - May 3, 2019

First, regardless of what the House may pass, I would hope that the Senate will remove all the nonsense and reduce the spending to true infrastructure such as bridges, roads etc. Not all the absurd things that may show up in a House bill.

Martha Hood - May 3, 2019

Of course. Anything remotely resembling an “Obama anything” should be vetoed immediately.!

Jim Ratliff - May 3, 2019

The $2 trillion infrastructure bill would be just about exactly like this. Give a kid a giant box of cereal and tell him not to waste it ,it’s got to last. His friends see him with this gigantic box of cereal and they all want some telling him there’s plenty for everybody, so share. So he starts to share, randomly,uncontrollably,without thought as to what he is doing. Next thing you know ,his big box of cereal is empty and he hasn’t even come close to making it last like it was supposed to. That is exactly the way the federal government would be worth $2 trillion to spend on infrastructure. No control, no plan,no consequences, and never getting anything finished. And then they all look so surprised when they’re out of money. As the one minute manager would say “if you don’t inspect, don’t expect “.

Bill Conley - May 3, 2019

Make sure we find cuts to offset “investments”. Balance the budget.

Bud Hefley - May 3, 2019

On infrastructure spending – you need to cut the $2T from other place first. For instance eliminate Dept of energy, Dept of transportation, EPA & Education. Each state can handle those without federal help.
The UN climate change is a fraud. We need to leave the UN any way. Support the Venisualian people.

William Coates - May 3, 2019

I hope he would veto it. Obama’s infrastructure spending mostly went for non-structural items in a depressed economy. Our economy is already strong, does not have the excess capacity to use that much money constructively. It would be mostly directed toward processing illegal immigrants in blue states.

James Slaughter - May 3, 2019

The President should veto any infrastructure bill that includes a tax increase and does not have it’s cost offset by spending cuts elsewhere. I concur with the infrastructure plan outlined by the Heritage Foundation.

Steven Grunewald - May 3, 2019

I would like him to veto the spending bill. I don’t think it’s very smart to borrow money before you know exactly where it is going and lock in what each item is going to cost.

[email protected] - May 3, 2019


Carl V Hinshaw - May 3, 2019

Infrastructure repairs need to be put up to bid by qualified union and non-union firms alike to keep costs in check. Also prevailing wage laws such as in Illinois drive the cost of repairs up dramatically. Time to be responsible with taxpayer dollars on these needed projects.

Randall Hart - May 3, 2019

I agree with James Slaughter’s comments. I would be very interested to see what concessions were made to get the Democrats to support this bill. Was it money for immigrants or climate change or what?

lu anne butler - May 3, 2019

I think that our President has said he will never sign a spending bill like the one the Democrats trapped him into signing. Hope this time it will not be a shovel-ready kind of top down, feeding frenzy for what could amount to nothing but waste. Let the States decide how to spend the allotted monies in the way they know where and what priorities exist.

James Sciullo - May 3, 2019

I feel that Obama’s grid modernization proposal to benefit consumers is a reason for the President to veto any infrastructure bill that would increase taxes on the American people. Our Energy grid modernization should be protected by our current federal government and not the plans of a prior administration’s untimely information.

Robert Gianino - May 3, 2019

Good comments. Unfortunately, Trump did sign off on the Agriculture bill. Election in 2020 might make passage likely. Something for everyone! Hope not, but not holding my breath.

James Rust - May 3, 2019

The U. S. uses about 500 gallons of motor fuel per car and we have 260 million cars on the road. A 10 cents per gallon increase in the federal fuel tax would cost each car $50 per year. This new tax would yield $13 billion that could be applied strictly for infrastructure improvements of our road system. With better road, America’s drivers would get better miles per gallon on their cars and the increase in motor fuel tax would be felt less by drivers.
This tax should be collected by the Federal government and the amount spent in each state should be returned to the state for strict use of road improvements.

Ken - May 3, 2019

Da ju vu all over again? Insanity? Yes that is what it is called. If you really want something built for the money, give it to local authorities based on needs and plans that have already been approved by local townships, cities, and counties.

ROBERT Jr SALINAS - May 3, 2019

A total waste of money. Just like tax free days, they do nothing. No freebie stimulus bimbulous. Apply the money where needed. Please hire intelligent conservative men and women to manage the infrastructure package if passed. Total transparency will be needed.

Marilyn Mills - May 4, 2019


Monte Mutschler - May 4, 2019

Yes Trump would veto The bill does not serve the people it pad the pockets of the bureaucracy

James Paul - May 4, 2019

Seeing the federal government get 2 trillion more dollars for programs federal bureaucrats will control is frightening. Projects should only be initiated and managed at the state level.

Susan McConnell - May 4, 2019

President Trump needs to remind Congress that they are spending other people’s money, and have the responsibility to spend it wisely, with an overall budget limit. They cannot spend a penny more, unless they offset it with cuts elsewhere. They are NOT to be allowed to spend that which they do not have.


Clem Strimel - May 4, 2019

Infrastructure is probably the one area that all Americans agree needs to be funded. The challenge is how to utilize whatever funds are appropriated in an effective and responsible manner. I’m in favor of more Public Private Partnerships that have appropriate checks and balances to misappropriations and politically influenced “pet projects”. I also favor spending offsets elsewhere to pay for it. there is plenty of waste and fraud to compensate if there was true accountability in Washington.

Steve dagostino - May 4, 2019

I agree

Jaime L. Manzano - May 4, 2019

Link any spending bills to reforms that neutralize their impact on the deficit, and excessive borrowing, e.g., user fees; private/public funding; competitive bidding removing union preferences; matching funding by benefiting states/localities.

WILL WINN - May 4, 2019

A needed project, however, the need for alternate modes of public transportation is also imperative. The last reasonable effort to do this was the transcontinental railroad.The technology of embedded control systems in the highways which would make vehicles proceed at a set speed and distance between each one would be a way to maintain the autonomy of the American insistence to drive their own cars and would allow most of the infrastructure in place to be used.

WILL WINN - May 4, 2019

If the legislation is passed it must be shaped to keep unions from controlling what happens, keeping prevailing wage clauses, etc., out of contracts.

Cherie - May 4, 2019

Yes, he should vito the bill. See comments by Susan McConnell!

Andrew Struk - May 4, 2019

I’m OK with the $2 T amount unless this become a pork-filled wish list. If so, the President should veto it. The projects must be clearly and fully identified as to scope and purpose, should be itemized and authorized sequentially with the necessary oversight including budget control. If it takes ten years to accomplish, let it be so that the real needed projects actually get done to our satisfaction. One of the early projects must be the strengthening of our national electrical grid. No projects for beautification of highways and/or monuments, etc.

Jill Jackson - May 4, 2019

I’m reminded of the stimulus package of the Obama administration. All those “shovel-ready jobs”. Whatever happened to that $1 trillion?! I don’t recall one bridge or airport being built. They better have some great accountability plan in place and a timeframe for completion. Also, no new taxes to cover any shortfall!

Sandra Sowers - May 4, 2019

I would expect Pres. Trump to veto this insane plan; we do not need any more deficit spending and taxation!!

Dee J - May 4, 2019

Many states are on the verge of bankruptcy. We have heard about budgets for a long time. States need this money to make bridges and roads safe again. We need the new tunnel into NY from NJ or one day thousands could be in there when it finally gives way. Deaths. We have seen bridges collapse with cars on them. We know the conditions of our roads today after years of wear and weather damage. States and towns have been trying to repair as much as they can.

Pat Ellis - May 4, 2019

VETO any bill that raises our DEFICIT!Congress needs to reduce the DEFICIT! They need to stop OVER SPENDING! They need to stop adding PORK to every bill! They need to cut budgets of EVERY Federal Agency and do not allow them to add mandates every year in order to raise their budgets!!! What happened to the BUDGET! It is worthless if its not used!

Nancy Hein - May 4, 2019

There are two comments that say it better than I ever could. See Susan McConnell and Jill Jackson on the comment board. I would hope he would veto it filled with pork. I voted for Trump BECAUSE he wasn’t a politician and has no obligations to anyone but the American people. He is the expert on building. I think he will recognize the pork and veto the bill if the Senate lets it land on his desk.

Homer Crothers - May 4, 2019

I absolutely want President Trump to veto any and all wasteful Obama-era type spending.

Thomas Hart - May 4, 2019

Pres Trump should counter offer. Trade off cost of infrastructure by eliminating wasteful government spending such as planned parenthood, federal aid to sanctuary cities,,eliminate Federal Dept of Education, erc. Heritage probably has a long list of wasteful projects.

Roger Deal - May 4, 2019

The President should veto any infrastructure bill that includes a tax increase and does not have it’s cost offset by spending cuts elsewhere. I concur with the infrastructure plan outlined by the Heritage Foundation.
Seeing the federal government get 2 trillion more dollars for programs federal bureaucrats will control is frightening. Projects should only be initiated and managed at the state level, but not mis-managed like California did with High Speed Rail.

Nora - May 4, 2019

No, I would not expect the President to vote for such a bill.

Leta Fry - May 4, 2019


Fran - May 6, 2019

Please no pork or ridiculous environmental rules in an infrastructure bill.

nancy jones - May 6, 2019

TEAM SUSAN MCCONNELL::::::::::period!

Kathleen Wiley - May 7, 2019

If Congress presents a wasteful spending bill like the “Stimulus Package” I expect him to veto it!! The frustration and helplessness that we, the American people felt when Obama passed that bill was horrid. I believe in President Trump and believe he will not let such a bill get through.

David Yonan - May 7, 2019

Our Congress and senate have made it completely clean that they NO longer wish to represent the American people to which they are to serve!
They advocate for those that are NOT citizens of our great nation and others who outright HATE our country !
It is time for great change, as Americans along with our peoples President Trump need to send a LOUD message that we want our Country Back from the Political Elite in both parties !

Henry Harbert - May 7, 2019

Congress can’t offer an efficient plan because it is government controlled. It will be wacky and the vendors and the workers will shake their heads at how illogical and wasteful the regulations are. Trump should veto it.

Nancy A Swatek - May 7, 2019

What ever happened to the “shovel ready” projects Obama needed all that money for.
Where did it go? I thought infrastructure was supposed to be done at that time.
Build the wall

Thomas Currie - May 13, 2019

It all sounds like an invite to pork barrel heaven – much of the idea may be worth while but I don’t anticipate any agreement between the warring factions that would focus the effort and spending on projects of real value for the nation as a whole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *