The White House tried to keep expectations low for the meeting on infrastructure on April 30 between President Trump and Democratic congressional leaders including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said prior to the meeting that ”it would not surprise me” if the negotiations soured.
Despite these doubts, the Democratic leaders left the meeting crowing that it had been “very constructive.” Schumer even claimed that Trump had agreed to a dollar figure for a bipartisan infrastructure deal, $2 trillion over 25 years.
“It is clear that both the White House and all of us want to get something done on infrastructure in a big and bold way,” Schumer said. “There was goodwill in this meeting.”
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders echoed the sentiment that progress had been made in the meeting. The U.S. “has not come even close to properly investing in infrastructure for many years, foolishly prioritizing the interests of other countries over our own,” she said. “We have to invest in this country’s future and bring our infrastructure to a level better than it has ever been before.”
[Related: Schumer says Trump and Democrats agree on $2 trillion infrastructure deal]
Trump and the Democrats have agreed to meet again to continue discussions on an infrastructure deal in three weeks. But as each week passes, the political climate will get more partisan as the spotlight turns to the 2020 presidential election.
Joseph Kane, an associate fellow at the Brookings Institution, told the Washington Examiner that the goodwill emerging from the meeting could be mere rhetoric. He said that any sweeping bipartisan agreement could still be hampered by sticker shock from Republicans about a package in the trillions of dollars.
“If anything, it just continues the same lip service we have seen for some time. Beyond big price tags up to $2 trillion — which would likely be a nonstarter among many Republicans — the lack of substantive details around funding remain a vexing challenge,” Kane said. “Time will tell whether a bigger infrastructure push is still possible, but time is also rapidly running out before 2020.”
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., told the Washington Examiner that she was hopeful something substantial would come from the meetings. Capito is a member of the Senate transportation and infrastructure subcommittee responsible for working out a bipartisan highway bill. She highlighted the importance of infrastructure as an issue that appeals to voters.
[Opinion: Grover Norquist: How Trump can get new infrastructure without a gas tax hike]
“Infrastructure has always been a major bipartisan priority because it affects so many aspects of American life — the way kids get to school and individuals get to work, the way we move goods across the country, the way we expand our horizons and improve our communities,” Capito said. “So much comes back to our transportation infrastructure systems, and ensuring they are safe and reliable is in all of our best interests.”
“I was glad to hear this week’s meeting between President Trump and Democrat leaders went well and look forward to hearing more detail,” she added.
Adie Tomer, who leads the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative, warned that one lingering issue will be how to pay for such a large investment.
“We still need to know exactly what Congress and the president want to build. But even more challenging is finding where the money will come from, which has vexed Washington for decades,” Tomer said. “Today’s good cheer can build public trust. Now our elected leaders have to design solutions.”
One of the ideas to raise revenue for a sweeping package would be raising the federal gas tax, which has stayed at the same level since 1993, 18.4 cents per gallon. Trump has signaled support for raising the tax, and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said recently that “everything is on the table” when asked about potentially raising the tax. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports a 25 cent increase on the tax.
