As the saying goes: “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” Senate Democrats recently released a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.

The plan would commit $1 trillion of federal funding to infrastructure investment, paid for by repealing some of the tax cuts for the rich in the recently passed Republican tax bill. By committing real federal funds, not relying on gimmicks, Senate Democrats have shown they value investment in our nation’s infrastructure. To date, Republican plans show quite the opposite.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Trump administration’s most recent plan claims it would boost infrastructure by at least $1.5 trillion, but the details show far less commitment. The plan only offers $200 billion of federal investment, while providing no information on where even these federal funds would come from.

Essentially, state and local governments are being left to pick up the rest of the tab. Hand-waving about leveraging the private sector does nothing to change this. Private companies will not build our infrastructure for free; instead they will do it only if they expect to earn a return which, in the end, will come out of American households’ budgets as surely as taxes do (think lots and lots of new tolls).

But even the announcement of a $200 billion federal investment in the Trump plan radically overstates the Republican commitment to infrastructure. For example, the absolute minimum level of commitment to infrastructure should be avoiding outright cuts.

But the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) faces a cumulative shortfall of $138 billion by 2027. This shortfall will occur because of the gas tax that funds the HTF has not been raised since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation, so its purchasing power has been slowly drained over time.

In recent years, Congress has covered the gap between HTF project spending and the decaying value of its funding source by using general tax revenues. But the Trump administration’s budget would permanently starve the HTF by limiting its spending to incoming revenues.

Last year, they were clear about this intent, this year they hid it in the budget’s baseline. And while the White House kicks the can to Congress on funding, House Speaker Paul Ryan Paul Davis RyanKenosha will be a good bellwether in 2020 At indoor rally, Pence says election runs through Wisconsin Juan Williams: Breaking down the debates MORE (R-Wis.) has already ruled out raising the gas tax. All in all, the net new federal funds dedicated to infrastructure from Trump budget documents seem to be roughly zero.

The Trump “plan” to provide utterly trivial new federal funds and then call on the states to do all the heavy lifting can be described another way: the status quo. After all, state and local governments today pay for the vast majority of infrastructure spending.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), state and local governments accounted for 77 percent of public spending on transportation and water infrastructure in 2014. Any plan that kicks still more of the responsibility for funding infrastructure to state and local governments isn’t a serious plan for change; instead it’s just extending the flawed status quo.

In fact, there are plenty of reasons to think that a strong federal role in infrastructure could result in more efficient infrastructure provision. The federal government faces lower interest rates, which means it can finance infrastructure spending for cheaper that state and local governments.

Further, much infrastructure provides regional benefits that spill over from one state to another (think of the D.C.-area metro system that serves the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia). Because not all benefits of such infrastructure are enjoyed by one single government’s residents, any single government is likely to underinvest in it.

We’re almost 15 months into the Trump presidency, and no real infrastructure plan has been pushed forward. Republicans in Congress claim it’s because there just hasn’t been time. But Senate Democrats released a $1 trillion infrastructure plan around a year ago.

Instead of investing in our nation’s infrastructure, Republicans instead found time to pass a $1.5 trillion tax cut that largely benefited the rich and big corporations. It seems clear which party is serious about infrastructure investment and which one is not.

Joshua Bivens is the director of economic research for the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Hunter Blair is a tax and budget analyst for EPI.