You have heard much conversation about the US infrastructure bill. This law was passed and will spend 1 trillion dollars on improving, maintaining and upgrading critical infrastructure like roads and bridges. Many on the right say that such expenditure is not worth it and that the United States will need to borrow the money to do it. Given debt in the US is at record highs, they point to record indebtedness as a reason to not do it. Those who want to do it say this policy will serve to help improve the economic outlook for the US for years to come. Please use the tools of CBA to take a position. Identify direct and indirect costs and benefits and use the tools to address this issue. Any assumptions need to be stated and costs and benefits can/should be based on sound hypotheticals (though you can use the internet to find data). Which side is right and how will you frame this via a short report to convince a skeptical audience?