Is there a difference between the liberal economic stimulus spending packages promoted by Presidents Bill Clinton William (Bill) Jefferson ClintonEpstein podcast host says he affiliated with elites from 'both sides of the aisle' Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in repose at Supreme Court Business groups start gaming out a Biden administration MORE in 1993 and President Barack Obama Barack Hussein ObamaThe Memo: Trump's strengths complicate election picture Obama shares phone number to find out how Americans are planning to vote Democrats' troubling adventure in a 'Wonderland' without 'rule of law' MORE in 2009 and President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to rebuild America’s infrastructure?

Yes, there are distinct and critical differences, and for economic conservative and free market champions, Mr. Trump’s proposal appears vastly preferable to those of his Democratic predecessors.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Clinton presidency is recognized as a time when the economy grew and the stock market soared, but not necessarily by design of the president. Mr. Clinton’s core proposal to get America’s economy back on its feet after the recession of the early 1990’s was a $16.3 billion economic stimulus bill.

The massive spending package was a grab bag of government spending projects including public works expenditures, extended unemployment benefits, funding for mass transit and money to summer jobs programs.

The design of the bill, coupled with a proposed $2.5 billion increase in block grants to cities, allowed GOP opponents to label the package as a political giveaway to liberal big city mayors. The bill was defeated in Congress and never became law.

President Obama likewise proposed an increase in government spending, this time close to some $1 trillion dollars, including a combination of tax cuts, government benefits and and loans. The President demanded the bill as a way of saving or creating nearly 2.3 million jobs.

The bill passed into law, but the Congressional Budget Office noted that the package came nowhere near creating the number of jobs the president claimed. Critics on the left said the president erred by not seeking a larger spending package, while those on the right noted the increased government spending did not create any jobs or prosperity.

Now comes the stimulus plan of Donald Trump, who has long been a noted critic of spending abroad while ignoring America’s infrastructure. Mr. Trump has called LaGuardia Airport and other large American airports as “third world.” Trump’s key advisor Steve Bannon has hailed rebuilding America’s failing infrastructure as part of an “economic nationalist” agenda, arguing that if America is to ever rebuild the time is now, when interest rates are at a zero.

Conservatives, suspect of most government spending programs like Clinton and Obama’s stimulus packages view the Trump proposal with suspicion. They shouldn’t.

Clinton and Obama’s spending proposals were marred by a Keynesian belief that government spending would magically create jobs. Trump’s proposal is different. A critical component of the Trump plan is private investment.

Libertarian economist Bob Poole of the Reason Foundation has watched the developments of Trump’s proposal with optimism. Poole believes that the Trump plan will treat infrastructure as a public utility. "People get their highway bill every month like they get their electric bill and water bill," Poole states. "They're paying for what they use and only what they use. They're not subsidizing a whole bunch of other projects that they never see."

Michael Sargent echoed this sentiment in a Heritage Foundation paper titled Building on Victory: An Infrastructure Agenda for the New Administration. He believes that the current process of federally funding the airports is woefully efficient. Instead, he notes, “airport funding should be localized by eliminating the burdensome Airport Improvement Program and its related taxes while empowering airports to generate and spend their own revenues through airport user fees.” This is a conservative idea that departs from liberal tax-and-spend policies of the past.

The biggest difference between Trump’s stimulus and those of his liberal predecessors is the intent.

President Trump Donald John TrumpBiden on Trump's refusal to commit to peaceful transfer of power: 'What country are we in?' Romney: 'Unthinkable and unacceptable' to not commit to peaceful transition of power Two Louisville police officers shot amid Breonna Taylor grand jury protests MORE is trying to repair infrastructure to Make America Great Again, not to create “shovel-ready jobs” like some Keynesian fantasy.

When stimulus money is spent for the purpose of increasing government spending to generate a government bubble of economic activity, it is destined to become a quick failure that saddles the country with long-term debt. However, when the purpose of the money is to build up infrastructure through the private sector (financed almost entirely through tax breaks), then it is another story.

The Trump stimulus marks a pivot from bureaucracies toward transactions. Private companies will not only independently pay for and build the internal improvements, but also own them. The personal ownership and equity stake of these institutions will ensure that they are always well-maintained and profitable.

Unlike the Clinton and Obama stimulus plans, the Trump plan will not cost taxpayers a penny. With its $167 billion raised from private investment, the costs of the plan will be entirely offset by new revenue generated from the economic stimulus.

By mixing the conservative pillars of privatization and property rights with the liberal rallying cry of social infrastructure, Trump has created a policy that members on both sides of the aisle should be able to get behind. In truth, it is the epitome of bipartisanship and should be embraced immediately.

Edward Woodson is a lawyer the host of the nationally syndicated Edward Woodson Show, which airs daily from 3 to 6 pm EST on gcnlive.com.

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.