Strategy Page
**SOLVENCY** Multi-state/large scale
Download 1.1 Mb.
|
**SOLVENCY**Multi-state/large scaleA transportation-only infrastructure bank will fund big multi-state projects Schulz, 10 (5/19/2010, John D., Contributing Editor, “Has the time come for a U.S. Infrastructure Bank?” http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/has_the_time_come_for_a_u.s._infrastructure_bank/, JMP) Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation, a libertarian-leaning think tank, said the nation suffers from both insufficient and poorly targeted infrastructure investments. “Multi-state projects are particularly hard to fund under the current system,” Poole said. “Large, billion-dollar, multi-state, multi-modal projects would be particularly attractive to funding through infrastructure bank funding.” But Poole is opposed to using general U.S. funds for transport projects. Rather, he said, they should be funded by user funds, not federal grants. All projects should be merit-based, which could be difficult in a town where all 538 members of Congress are used to bringing home some bacon to their districts and states. “There may be a niche market role for a narrow transportation-only infrastructure bank,” Poole said. “But a broader infrastructure bank may be too ambitious to try and achieve a multi-modal, grant-and-loan-based bank, which I think might fail,” he added. Only an NIB would be self-sustaining and guarantee long -term funding that is crucial to large scale projects. Thomasson 11 (Scott economic and domestic policy director of the progress policy institute “Hearing before the subcommittee on Highways and transit “National Infrastructure Bank: More Bureaucracy and Red Tape”” http://www.scribd.com/doc/92300621/Congressional-Testimony-National-Infrastructure-Bank-Separating-Myths-from-Realities) Much of the criticism of the infrastructure bank focuses on features that are not shared by all the proposals now before Congress. For example, the objection that is most frequently misapplied is that the infrastructure bank is not a true “bank,” because it makes grants in addition to issuing loans. The argument is that making grants is essentially giving money away for free, something a “real bank “would never do. This criticism has been lobbed against the president’s jobs bill proposal many times since he announced it, but it simply does not apply to that proposal, which is limited to loans and loan guarantees. The president’s current proposal in the American Jobs Act is not the same as his own earlier “I-Bank” included in his most recent budget proposal submitted to Congress earlier this year, nor is it the same as previous bills offered by Congresswoman DeLauro, Senator Dodd, and others, which are the versions many opponents choose as the targets of their criticism. The president’s jobs bill proposal adopts the model that resulted from a thoughtful bipartisan effort in the Senate, embodied in the BUILD Act in introduced by John Kerry, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mark Warner, and Lindsay Graham. The BUILD Act represents an entirely new approach to the idea of creating an infrastructure bank, one that goes a long way to reconcile the huge levels of needed investment with the very real spending constraints facing Congress. This proposal launches the bank on a fiscally responsible scale, while preserving the best principles of political independence and merit-based decision making that make the bank worth doing in the first place. They do this by structuring their bank as an independent, government-owned financing authority using model used by the U.S.Export-Import Bank, the TIFIA program, and other well-run existing federal credit programs, none of which bear any resemblance to shareholder-owned GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.Beth the BUILD Act and the American Jobs Act would create a new entity called the American Infrastructure Financing Authority (“AIFA”). The AIFA proposal has been the subject of much confusion and misinformation, with opponents painting a misleading picture of what this type of bank would look like and how it would finance infrastructure projects. The difference between the investment tools offered in the bipartisan AIFA proposal and earlier approaches starts with understanding the distinction between funding and financing. Grants and funding programs “give money away for free” by spending federal money directly to pay for projects, or passing that money along to states and local governments to pay for them. Financing programs like AIFA and TIFIA require repayment of loans and reimbursement from borrowers for the default risks assumed by the federal government, making the Treasury whole for its financing of the project. AIFA loans and loan guarantees would be issued using the same credit mechanisms as TIFIA and RRIF established under the Federal Credit Reform Act (“FCRA”). This approach makes AIFA a particularly appropriate successor to the TIFIA program for transportation projects. Because of this structural compatibility with FCRA-based credit programs, combined with the independence and expertise of its staff and board of directors, an AIFA-type entity could provide a unique opportunity to enhance existing programs by offering those programs the option of utilizing its staff and resources to assist in the evaluation of loan applications. Offices like RRIF or the DOE loan guarantee programs could retain their discretion to make final decisions on applications, while improving the review and structuring of those projects by calling on the bank as a financial advisor. AIFA would be funded with a one-time discretionary appropriation of $10 billion. While the initial start-up funding could be paid for using funding from the surface transportation bill or other legislation reported from this Committee, there has thus far been no proposal to do so. A key feature of AIFA is that it is designed to be self-sustaining. The bipartisan Senate proposal is carefully structured to ensure it adheres to the requirement to operate without ongoing appropriations from Congress. NIB is non-partisan—gives states flexibility and enables large-scale projects Schwartz 8 (Bernard L. Schwartz--Public policy advocate, Chairman and CEO of BLS Investments, New America Foundation, “Redressing America's Public Infrastructure Deficit,” Testimony Before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, June 19, 2008, http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/redressing_america_s_public_infrastructure_deficit, MH) 2) Establish a National Infrastructure Bank and Supporting Regulation. My second recommendation relates to the proposed new programs for federal support of non-federal infrastructure investment. If properly designed, they would significantly improve our system for financing infrastructure investment. State and local governments account for the lion's share of our nation's public infrastructure spending. For many years, the U.S. municipal bond markets have functioned well, allowing state and local governments to finance much of their infrastructure needs through the debt markets. But as noted earlier, state and local governments are experiencing new borrowing constraints as some states and localities bump up against debt ceilings or face increased borrowing costs because of deteriorating credit ratings and conditions. Moreover, our current financing structures do not allow states and localities to take advantage of the large institutional pools of capital, such as U.S. and European pension funds, that are available for infrastructure financing. For these reasons, the federal government will need to do more in the future to bear the cost of infrastructure investment and to assist state and local governments with the financing of their infrastructure needs. It can do so by offering federal guarantees to help keep borrowing costs for state and local governments low and by creating new institutions to help state and local governments borrow more efficiently and to tap large pools of capital. In these respects, the proposed National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) and the proposed National Infrastructure Corporation (NIDC) move us in the right direction and would help modernize the way we finance infrastructure. First, the proposed NIB and NIDC would give us the capacity at the federal level to issue long-term general-purpose and specific-project infrastructure bonds enabling us to tap more easily the private capital markets for financing public infrastructure. The bonds could be as long as 30 to 50 years in maturity, thereby providing an attractive financing vehicle for infrastructure improvements that have a useful life of several decades. Second, the proposed NIB and NIDC would lower the borrowing costs for state and local governments by offering federal guarantees for state and local projects as well as by providing direct grants and start-up financing. A federal guarantee for state and local projects would lower the interest rates state and local governments need to pay in the municipal bond market by 50 to 100 basis points, saving state and local taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Third, the NIB and NIDC would help remove politics from the funding equation, thus eliminating the standard political objections to public infrastructure projects as just "pork-barrel" politics. They would do so by providing a professional, non-partisan justification for needed infrastructure spending. The NIB, for example, would have a five-member independent board that would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. It would also have a professional staff to carry out a thorough review of projects based on return on investment and their contribution to the public good. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.1 Mb. Share with your friends:
|