It is no secret that American infrastructure lags behind the rest of the world. Dilapidated roads and nearly broken transportation systems have been hallmarks of our country. In sharp contrast, however, is the infrastructure of our competitors. In Japan, high-speed “bullet” railroads are commonplace, and have been key in promoting economic growth and expansion.  China has quickly emerged as a world leader in 5G networks as they hope to capitalize on this high-speed wave to compete with American technology monopolies. In India, past underdevelopment has allowed India to exploit alternate energies with the potential to lead the charge in combating oil use. This increased competition has put external pressure on America to revamp its infrastructure while it is still able to reasonably compete. Accompanying this foreign competition is internal pressure from the American people. This topic continuously polls high among the American public, sitting at over ⅔ approval. With this high popularity, it begs the question why have other politicians not capitalized on this key issue? The answer is complex. Former President Trump was savvy enough to pick up on America's inkling towards infrastructure. He campaigned on pouring over a trillion dollars into the infrastructure system. The former president’s proposal would be a mix of federal and private sourcing, and a major focal point in his more populist rhetoric that was at odds with the traditional republican viewpoints (Stein). However, Trump failed to live up to this plan in spectacular fashion. Almost no new infrastructure was passed and in key areas like water, facilitation decreased. 

Coming of this failure, President Biden has had large shoes to fill in this area. Many of his turned Trump supporters have come to support him for his infrastructure promises. Similarly, many supporters in his base have long pushed for renovating America’s systems to accommodate alternative energy and make the country less oil-dependent. While being a centrist, this was once a place where Biden had to deliver an expansive policy as the American people wanted change. To his credit, Biden has proposed one of the most progressive programs in American history. At 2 trillion dollars Biden’s bill is a mix of physical, traditional infrastructure combined with community-based infrastructure. On the physical side, Biden’s bill aims to achieve “20,000 miles of rebuilt roads, repairs to the 10 most economically important bridges in the country, the elimination of lead pipes from the nation’s water supplies” (Tankersley). The effects of such reforms would be profound on transportation. 20 thousand miles of road is a significant portion of America’s roads, making it an ambitious venture. Renovating the most important bridges would have similar effects. The Brooklyn Bridge alone gets over 120,000 vehicles per day making such innovations impactful to millions of daily commuters. Lastly, the water supply measures are likely to prevent water crises such as the one in Flint, that left communities extremely vulnerable and in harm. Repairing these systems will be the most costly provisions in Biden’s bill but funding is also allocated towards non-traditional infrastructure building. Some of these measures include “expanding long-term care for older adults through Medicaid, banning exclusionary zoning, and investing in community-based violence reduction programs, among many other things” (Nilsen).

Much of the dissent on this bill comes from these aforementioned measures. Arguments are being made that such actions are not of a priority at the moment due to the deficit America is in. While these have merit, the effects of these measures outweigh the consequences. Exclusionary zoning has historically been used to isolate classes and prevent affordable housing in a variety of places. Banning these discriminatory practices would help integrate communities and create better opportunities in upwards mobility, which America currently ranks fairly low in. Expanding Medicaid alleviated burdens on the elderly and provides more security in our country. A larger social safety net allows us to increase general standards of living especially for those who are physically unable to work anymore. Investing in a framework to slow down violence in communities once again has a massive upside as it could increase economic output in these areas and expand labor force participation. If once rundown areas can be rebuilt the economic effects would be staggering. Potential ROI would compensate for initial losses. Although these points may be true the potential future of this bill will likely rest on one man-Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV). 

Joe Manchin is well known to be the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. As of now, it is unlikely that this bill will cause a break in party lines. Republicans have been apprehensive about the total spending amounts in this bill. Moreover, they allege many parts of it are a waste of money and unlikely to cause an impact. Spending on renewable energy transitions and expanding social programs in their opinion is fundamentally contrasting with their party position. Biden may be an apt negotiator with deep political connections, but even he is unlikely to be able to sway even the most centrists in the Republican group. All other democrats, but Manchin, thus far have stayed in rank with Biden’s propositions making it unlikely that they will break rank in this vote. Coupled with the popular support of the bill, a no vote would be comparable to political suicide. Thus the lights fall on Manchin. Hailing from West Virginia he represents a state strongly in favor of Trump. If he sides strongly with Biden he risks losing reelection in the red state. That being said, there is good news for Democrats as Manchin was highly critical of the GOP’s plan quoted as saying "We're going to do whatever it takes. If it takes $4 trillion, I'd do $4 trillion, but we have to pay for it” (Winck). His last point, that the bill had to be paid for is in contention as Biden favored raising the corporate income tax to pay for the measures in 15 years, unlike Manchin who did not want such a large tax hike. There are still many questions to be answered in regards to the bill, but as of now, Biden has been able to deliver what his predecessors have failed. He may have campaigned as a centrist but he has developed a progressive undertone in his first 100 days in office. 

Works Cited

Nilsen, Ella. “Joe Biden's $2 Trillion Infrastructure and Jobs Plan, Explained.” Vox, Vox, 31 Mar. 2021, www.vox.com/2021/3/31/22357179/biden-two-trillion-infrastructure-jobs-plan-explained. 

Stein, Jeff. “Trump's 2016 Campaign Pledges on Infrastructure Have Fallen Short, Creating Opening for Biden.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 18 Oct. 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/10/18/trump-biden-infrastructure-2020/. 

Tankersley, Jim. “Biden Details $2 Trillion Plan to Rebuild Infrastructure and Reshape the Economy.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 Mar. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/business/economy/biden-infrastructure-plan.html. 

Winck, Ben. “Manchin Balks at GOP's Smaller Infrastructure Plan - and Says He Can Back $4 Trillion as Long as It's Paid For.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 15 Apr. 2021, www.businessinsider.com/manchin-republican-infrastructure-plan-tax-hikes-senate-democrats-spending-bill-2021-4.