Trump 'Infrastructure Deal' Possible Now Only With LaRouche's Policy, and With International Partners
The effect on House Democrats of "legal assassin" Robert Mueller's effective call for impeachment yesterday, signifies that no "deal" for infrastructure legislation will be made between Democratic leaders and President Trump for the foreseeable future.
This was in fact, already true given what Rep. Peter DeFazio acknowledged to the Washington Post May 27, that his party, to his chagrin, would not back any tax increase for infrastructure unless Trump introduced it first — if then. Trump had said in a Fox interview May 19: "What they want me to do is say, 'Well, what we'll do is raise taxes, and we'll do this and this and this,' and then they'll have a news conference. 'See, Trump wants to raise taxes.'" With more and more Democrats focussed on "investigating" and impeaching the President, this could not happen. And by that time it was clear the Republicans in Congress and in Trump's own staff — on orders from Wall Street, Club for Growth, Grover Norquist, et al. — would support neither new borrowing to invest in infrastructure, nor any tax, nor any combination of the two.
In reality, decisions to fund infrastructure investments result directly from decisions on what must be built, and how urgently — as Lyndon LaRouche often noted in his economic writings. LaRouche's "four economic laws" policy specified the urgency of building new, high-technology and high energy-flux density projects: high-speed rail and mag-lev transport systems, multi-function dam and water-management systems across river basins and aquifers, port and rail freight interfaces, third- and fourth-generation nuclear fission reactors, and a crash program to break through to fusion power. Space exploration, LaRouche says, will provide the overarching science driver through new "Apollo Projects" if the education and funding for them is mobilized.
Proceeding from these purposes, LaRouche insisted on Glass-Steagall bank reorganization at the start; no private banks would or could participate in such national rebuilding projects unless put under Glass-Steagall regulation. And the national credit institution to fund the process would base its credit issuance on the increased productive employment and productivity of the next generation, to repay the debt the nation would incur.
Currently, Members of the U.S. Congress show no awareness of such urgent purposes: In fact, they can watch the agricultural and industrial center of the country overrun by months of devastating floods, and not think of new Federal flood-control infrastructure! Consequently they think about "paying for" $2 trillion or other postulated infrastructure investments, solely in terms of unreal "talking points" distributed by party leaders.
A Trump-Democrats deal thus might have been worse than none. The Democrats' "Party" legislation would be Rosa DeLauro's relentlessly "green" National Infrastructure Bank Act. This is not only a far smaller authorization than $2 trillion; each infrastructure category is required to be judged on a) immediate job creation and b) contribution to mitigating climate change.
A far better step now offers itself to the President: a deal with Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on the Mexico/Central America Development Plan which AMLO — as he is known — has now twice publicly asked the United States to join and support. This is a $30-40 billion development plan for cross-isthmus and North-South railroads and associated port development, combined with a new interconnected electricity grid across the region and agro-industrial development projects in southern Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries of Central America. Its purpose is to reduce migration and increase security, through development and reducing poverty.
President Trump has already tentatively committed some U.S. Federal credit, through the USAID development bank, to this development plan, as has Mexico, which is asking that he increase the commitment. This is the kind of purpose for which such credit should and does flow. China is doing this all across Eurasia and Africa, and in South America, through its Belt and Road Initiative. Such a step with Mexico could lead in the direction of cooperation in projects between the world's two most important nations.