The Impact of Biden's Infrastructure Bill on U.S. Competitiveness

President Biden's infrastructure bill intends to bolster the United States' competitiveness on a global scale. However, its effectiveness is contentious, with many arguing that it may not achieve the intended goals and could even hinder economic growth. The article discusses key aspects of the bill, its potential impact, and the current state of U.S. competitiveness in relation to the implementation of the bill.

Introduction to Competitiveness

No significant increase in competitiveness can be achieved until the United States ends its stringent COVID-19 restrictions, similar to those in Texas, Florida, and Mississippi, among other regions. These restrictions continue to hamper economic recovery and hinder the normal functioning of businesses and individuals.

Main Components and Criticisms

The bulk of the infrastructure bill does not offer substantial benefits for U.S. competitiveness. Instead, it focuses on pork barrel payouts to politically connected corporations and industries. This approach has generated considerable backlash, as many large corporations, including CEOs, have publicly criticized the bill. For instance, the introduction of new secure voting laws, which corporations have tried to align with, indicates their desire for a piece of the infrastructure funding.

Additionally, the bill's "green" initiatives, such as the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, are criticized for exacerbating inequality. These subsidies are often enjoyed by the wealthy, given that many average consumers do not drive luxury vehicles like Priuses or Teslas.

In terms of job creation and economic stimulus, the road and bridge building sections of the bill are questionable. Numerous environmental reviews and permits will prolong the construction process, leading to minimal actual infrastructure development. As with the Obama administration's "shovel-ready" projects, the results may fall short of expectations.

Rural Broadband Expansion and Existing Programs

The initiative to increase broadband Internet access in rural areas is also subject to scrutiny. According to data from 2017, approximately 25 million people in rural areas lacked fixed land-based broadband coverage with a speed of 25 Mbps, while another 14 million had no broadband service at all. Local telephone service remains an option, but it often provides slower Internet speeds.

Addressing this issue, the U.S. government already has several programs in place, including those managed by the FCC. These include:

Community Connect broadband grants: $30 million DLT Distance Learning and Telemedicine grants: $47 million Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program: $29.851 million in loans and $1.73 million in loan subsidies (total $690 million)

Given these existing resources, the Biden administration's additional funding for broadband expansion is difficult to justify. The allocation of funds through the bill may not bring as much benefit as initially anticipated.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The infrastructure bill presents a mixed bag for U.S. competitiveness. While some aspects may offer potential benefits, the overall impact remains uncertain and controversial. It is crucial that policymakers consider public opinion, corporate feedback, and existing government programs when allocating resources. This approach could ensure that any investments made are both effective and sustainable, contributing positively to the nation's economic resilience and global competitiveness.