New Op-Ed in the New York Times Contrasts Effect on Inflation of Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework and Democrats’ Reckless Tax and Spending Spree

July 23, 2021 | Portman Difference

A new op-ed in the New York Times by American Enterprise Institute economist Michael Strain highlights the differing effects that major proposed government spending policies will have on the sharply rising inflation the American economy is experiencing as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, and makes the case for the bipartisan infrastructure agreement that Senator Portman has helped to lead over the past few months.

Strain explains:

“There are good reasons to believe this bipartisan infrastructure spending won’t be inflationary. Its focus is on improving longer-term productivity, not near-term demand. By strengthening the supply side of the economy, it would ease inflationary pressures. In addition, the spending would be spread out over a decade, and would likely add very little to the deficit until 2024.

“The $3.5 trillion plan is another story.”

As Strain makes clear, the bipartisan infrastructure agreement invests in long-term supply-side productivity in our economy rather than in fueling short-term demand as is the case with the Biden administration’s $3.5 trillion reconciliation proposal focused on social spending, which would overheat our economy while imposing the biggest tax increases in history. This difference in approach is the reason why the bipartisan infrastructure agreement is the right path forward to get the country back to the strong economy we enjoyed pre-pandemic thanks to the 2017 tax reforms.

Strain’s opinion piece follows a study of the proposals he conducted last week along with American Action Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin that came to a similar conclusion.

The full op-ed from Strain can be found here.