If you want to judge the Trump infrastructure proposal by comparing it to what he campaigned on, you'd have to say one of two things:
Thank God he only proposed to spend 20 percent of the 10-year, $1 trillion blowout he promised, since that would have been a fiscal disaster.
What? Only $200 billion? What the **** happened to $1 trillion?
I tend toward the former. Infrastructure is undoubtedly a role for government, although there's plenty of room to debate how much of it should come from Washington as opposed to the states. And there's no question the work needs to be done, although I've always been skeptical of the idea that we should do infrastructure projects to "create jobs" or whatever. You should only spend money on something because the something needs to be done, not because you're hoping the thing will stimulate other things. That's artificial and almost never gets the results it's designed to get.
If you want to judge the Trump infrastructure proposal by comparing it to what he campaigned on, you'd have to say one of two things:
