Infrastructure Bank
Monday, August 09, 2010
The President has proposed a $50 billion federal infrastructure
bank, which might be paid for by raising taxes. I'm not sold
on his plan, and here's why:
A federal infrastructure bank is a good idea, and was 9 years
ago when Dennis Kucinich and I proposed it and could implement it
without raising taxes. With the president's plan, however, he
would gut the highway funding formula that distributes funds and
he'd get decision making authority on funding. My fear is
that states like California will be awash in funds and Ohio will
get squat.
This Administration demagogues about earmarks, yet the President
is seeking almost $1.8 billion in transportation earmarks this
year alone. Last year, his transportation earmark
requests of about $1.8 billion became law. The real
sadness is that the president would rather talk about his flawed
infrastructure bank as a down-payment for the long-overdue
highway bill. If he'd focused on the highway bill he wouldn't
have to come to Cleveland and throw a 'Hail Mary' 55 days before
the election.
The most recent six-year highway and transit bill expired nearly
one year ago (September 30, 2009). Its
reauthorization remains in limbo.
Most believe there's little chance this $50 billion
infrastructure bank idea will pass in the next few weeks, let
alone be paid for and signed into law. Further, I'm not alone
in having concerns about this and other last-minute proposals from
the President to perk up the economy.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told USA TODAY
he doesn't think the President's new proposals are
"game-changers," adding "I don't think they're going to add
up to a lot of new jobs."
ShareThis