Writing to President Trump prior to their meeting at the White House on Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. offered three principles for infrastructure reform.

One proposal deserves President Trump's open mind. The other two deserve Trump's unequivocal rejection.

The letter notes that any major infrastructure bill requires "substantial, new and real revenue." While that might sound bad to many conservatives, nothing is free. Future generations already face a grave challenge in addressing the massive national debt, but unbridled infrastructure spending would make things worse. Yes, some infrastructure projects will pay for themselves. But the government will also inevitably ensure a lot of money is wasted. To avoid higher interest payments on the debt, Trump should respond to Democrats by suggesting to raise the federal gas tax and increase user fees on highways (tolls) and at airports (ticket fees).

Less impressive is the Pelosi-Schumer demand that any infrastructure bill include "broadband, water, energy, schools, housing and other initiatives." The two top Democrats in Congress add that "We must also invest in resiliency and risk mitigation of our current infrastructure to deal with climate change."

While there is some merit in broadband investment, the "water, energy, schools, housing, and other initiatives" read like a wish list of new Democratic pet projects. I'm wholly unconvinced that investing in those areas will spur anything like a justifiable expectation of return on investment. Where that's not the case, state governments should take the lead.

This isn't a small concern. Spending the people's money in a bipartisan fashion, responsibility must be prioritized. Not all investments are born equal. Trump should warn Democrats that this bill cannot become a pork product.

Trump should make the same case even more strongly in response to the Democratic leaders' third demand. They say that a "big and bold infrastructure plan must have strong Buy America, labor, and women, veteran and minority-owned business protections in any package."

No. Even if the Buy America caveat makes sense on a marginal cost basis, if foreign competitors can offer cheaper and better materials, they should get the contract. But any infrastructure bill should also change the law to enable more competition in infrastructure-dependent industries. We should want foreign airlines to tender on U.S. routes, and foreign shipping companies to deliver U.S. goods. There's no risk to net employment here: Foreign businesses interested in these opportunities would have to hire American workers.

That said, Trump's main gripe with Pelosi-Schumer should be their effort to give a big payoff to unions, and via affirmative action, to play identity politics. Instead, the best businesses should get the contracts at the most cost-effective level. Here, Trump should push for eliminating the Davis-Bacon union payoff act, which increases costs for taxpayers and acts as a indirect payoff to the Democratic Party (via union dues and organizing). Limiting opportunities to those who kneel to the union bosses, Davis-Bacon restricts employment potential and promotes political corruption (bribes for contracts). It has no place in 2019 America.

Democrats have been clear in their letter. Trump should return the favor. Seeking a bipartisan bill that earns his signature, he must not let this bill become a wish list of Democratic waste.