So a big question emerging from the election is whether Republicans in Congress will get on board behind the new President's big ticket infrastructure plans, considering their favorite tax relief proposals (mostly for the wealthy) will ramp up deficit levels. Without severe spending reductions the nation's debt load will increase by $4 trillion to $5 trillion under various Trump proposals, according to various economic forecasts, which were blithely ignored during the campaign by many conservatives. Or do we all still believe in “Voodoo Economics”?

The President-elect and the GOP Congress will try to structure infrastructure spending to encourage private investment in various public-private partnership (PPP) schemes. PPPs have been in vogue recently at state and local levels—the idea is to get the profit motive controls of business to cut down on cost overruns and let entrepreneurs run projects and facilities instead of 9-to-5 government bureaucrats. But PPPs have had mixed results—and free rein can often lead to overcharging users as well as (would you be shocked to know?) shoddy execution. In the end taxpayers must pay either through fees or higher taxes—the private investment gambit does not lower the ultimate cost no matter the smoke and mirrors.

What the country really needs is major integrated transportation, electric grid and sewer-waste water projects that tie into carefully planned regional development programs for well-conceived housing and commercial development. The idea should be to encourage more walkable areas, reduce car dependency, increase density while providing for parks and other public spaces, and efficiently link airports and population centers with mass transit. Properly conceived plans can help reduce congestion and car pollution, while at the same time encourage development and enhance real estate values.

Ideally, federal dollars would be allocated based on states and cities working to meet these goals. But don't expect that to happen. We'll see more one-off projects and the potential return of massive pork barrel allocations to fund the pet needs of local pols.

Separately, funding is just desperately needed for shoring up dilapidated and failing systems like overloaded sewer treatment plants as well as schools and hospitals.

Taxpayers increasingly want government to fund these needs—state and local mass transit oriented ballot initiatives just passed in many parts of the country including in some of the most congested and car dependent places like New Jersey, Los Angeles and Seattle.

Now we'll see if infrastructure can become Trump's signature policy initiative, and we don't mean the border wall.

That would be no small achievement for this real estate developer. But he and we cannot avoid the enormous bills.

The effort to refurbish the nation's crumbling infrastructure may have received a huge and extremely overdue boost from the Trump win—that's been one of the President-elect's few concrete policy proposals next to “building the wall,” which is infrastructure of sorts, I guess. Trump, the builder, has a natural affinity for infrastructure policy—engineering grand constructions that lead to ribbon cuttings and branding exercises is part of his attention-needing DNA. He may even imagine the line-up of coast-to-coast opportunities lying before him–a Trump Airport, Trump Bridge and Trump Interstate–while some of his opponents just focus on damn Trump.

But is there the willpower in Congress to help fund the literally trillions of dollars of neglected or mothballed projects for rebuilding aging bridges and tunnels, leak-prone dams, new and expanded mass transit systems and airports, revamped sewers and waste treatment facilities, and on and on?

All this while at the same time, Trump has campaigned on cutting taxes and increasing military spending.

Democrats have been calling for a major dose of infrastructure outlays for more than a decade—they are potentially huge jobs creators, will help support efficient economic growth for future generations, will lower risk for regional economic breakdowns in the case major facilities malfunction or collapse, and can take advantage of current low interest rates to help finance projects at more reasonable costs. But the GOP Congress stonewalled infrastructure spending during the Obama years to uphold their deficit cutting agenda or was it just to stonewall Obama?

So a big question emerging from the election is whether Republicans in Congress will get on board behind the new President's big ticket infrastructure plans, considering their favorite tax relief proposals (mostly for the wealthy) will ramp up deficit levels. Without severe spending reductions the nation's debt load will increase by $4 trillion to $5 trillion under various Trump proposals, according to various economic forecasts, which were blithely ignored during the campaign by many conservatives. Or do we all still believe in “Voodoo Economics”?

The President-elect and the GOP Congress will try to structure infrastructure spending to encourage private investment in various public-private partnership (PPP) schemes. PPPs have been in vogue recently at state and local levels—the idea is to get the profit motive controls of business to cut down on cost overruns and let entrepreneurs run projects and facilities instead of 9-to-5 government bureaucrats. But PPPs have had mixed results—and free rein can often lead to overcharging users as well as (would you be shocked to know?) shoddy execution. In the end taxpayers must pay either through fees or higher taxes—the private investment gambit does not lower the ultimate cost no matter the smoke and mirrors.

What the country really needs is major integrated transportation, electric grid and sewer-waste water projects that tie into carefully planned regional development programs for well-conceived housing and commercial development. The idea should be to encourage more walkable areas, reduce car dependency, increase density while providing for parks and other public spaces, and efficiently link airports and population centers with mass transit. Properly conceived plans can help reduce congestion and car pollution, while at the same time encourage development and enhance real estate values.

Ideally, federal dollars would be allocated based on states and cities working to meet these goals. But don't expect that to happen. We'll see more one-off projects and the potential return of massive pork barrel allocations to fund the pet needs of local pols.

Separately, funding is just desperately needed for shoring up dilapidated and failing systems like overloaded sewer treatment plants as well as schools and hospitals.

Taxpayers increasingly want government to fund these needs—state and local mass transit oriented ballot initiatives just passed in many parts of the country including in some of the most congested and car dependent places like New Jersey, Los Angeles and Seattle.

Now we'll see if infrastructure can become Trump's signature policy initiative, and we don't mean the border wall.

That would be no small achievement for this real estate developer. But he and we cannot avoid the enormous bills.