Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has called for a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.
"My contract calls for $1 trillion dollars in infrastructure investment, of which the inner cities will be a major beneficiary," Trump told supporters in Charlotte, North Carolina on Oct. 26, according to the Washington Examiner.
Trump's plan, which was developed by Harvard-trained economist Peter Navarro and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, would implement spending of the $1 trillion over 10 years, mostly through tax credits. In dollar amount, it's similar to the proposal by Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont put forth during the Democratic primary in which he proposed $1 trillion over five years, although that plan was based more on tax increases rather than tax credits.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, aims to spend $275 billion direct government spending over five years, plus another $225 billion in private investment, reported Yahoo.
"Trump's plan will harness market forces to help raise construction funds by incentivizing private sector investors through tax credits – thereby revolutionizing American infrastructure finance,” Navarro said in a press release about the plan. “”In sharp contrast, Hillary Clinton proposes to finance $500 billion worth of new infrastructure spending over five years by levying stiff new business taxes and creating a national infrastructure bank that will introduce high-risk, sub-prime lending to the government. It's a fool's errand."
According to Yahoo, Trump's plan would rely heavily on privatization to follow through with the infrastructure, which could lead to more tolls and other fees typically used in cases where taxes aren't relied upon.
Yahoo reported that Clinton's plan, on the other hand, would rely on increasing taxes, but would also ensure that projects typically not attractive to private investors, such as parks and schools, get funded.
Trump's economic advisers, Navarro and Ross, claim, that the GOP nominee's plan would offer quicker growth than Clinton's though.
“A rapid acceleration of growth also leads to a significant reduction of our debt burden relative to GDP, and when Mr. Trump’s spending cuts are added the plan achieves full revenue neutrality,” the pair wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “What one gets with the Clinton plan is even slower growth than we are experiencing now during the worst economic recovery since World War II. As the Tax Foundation notes, the Clinton plan 'would lead to a 2.6 percent lower level of GDP” and “lower levels of wages and full-time equivalent jobs.'”