Blog: Infrastructure Bank

Statement

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."

Source