Tifia increases solve the aff—make infrastructure projects easier to fund
Download 0.66 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Localized benefits don’t outweigh larger tradeoffs
- Transportation investments take money away from other sectors
- Transportation investment takes jobs away from other sectors
- Transportation investment shifts jobs from other sectors
- Water Infrastructure TradeOff
- Projects wouldn’t be selected for social benefits- only based on profit
- Transportation infrastructure exacerbates inequalities between people in cities and towns
- We must examine the problems that Stimulus can have for racial inequity
- Bank’s projects exclude rural areas
- Bank could be independently owned, not USFG investment
Spending DALink – Plan ExpensiveNIB is expensive and would require increased taxesRep. Tiberi, 10 (Patrick J., R-OH, Federal News Service, HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE , 5-13-2010, p.2, Lexis, CAS). Looking forward to the testimony of our witnesses on our two panels today as we discuss another potential method to fix our nation's infrastructure needs. As we proceed, I think it is important to keep in mind that a national infrastructure bank or any other financing method that we look at, for that matter, is not free. It would be presumably -- we would presumably need to be capitalizing this initially. To that extent, it was used to disperse federal subsidies such as grants or tax incentives, rather than revolving loans. It would also need an ongoing revenue stream. This would result ultimately in higher taxes, user fees or deficit spending going forward. Federal guaranteed borrowing and lending could place taxpayers on the hook should it fail. We have unfortunately already been down this road in another area of government with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. My comments, Chairman Neal, are not meant to put a damper on the discussion. I just think we should proceed with our eyes as wide open as possible and recognize that additional spending doesn't come without a cost down the line. Thank you and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to your testimony.
Sector TradeOff DATradeOff DA LinksNo economic benefit – boosts tradeoff with declines elsewhere Wachs, Institute of Transportation Studies director, 11 (Martin, Spring 2011, Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering and City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley and of the University of California Transportation Center, and former ACCESS: The magazine of UCTC, “Transportation, Jobs, and Economic Growth,” http://www.uctc.net/access/38/access38_transportation_growth.shtml, Accessed 6-29-12, CAS) From a national perspective, and over time, gains that are immediate and obvious can be—and often are—outweighed by diffuse losses elsewhere. Suppose federal money was used to build a new highway link between a port and freight rail hub. The new link might cut delivery time within the region. The prospect of improved inventory management, increased sales, and other sources of profit would draw cargo to that port, increase port jobs, expand employment related to regional highway goods movement, and increase business at the rail hub. At the same time, it would likely reduce traffic to competing ports in other regions and create exactly the same chain reaction—in reverse—in those other areas. Employment would be lost as business is attracted to the competing port. The economy as a whole would be better off only if the increased productivity in the target area exceeded the cost of the highway investment and the loss of business in competing regions.
(Martin, Spring 2011, Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering and City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley and of the University of California Transportation Center, and former ACCESS: The magazine of UCTC, “Transportation, Jobs, and Economic Growth,” http://www.uctc.net/access/38/access38_transportation_growth.shtml, Accessed 6-29-12, CAS) Not all transportation investments meet these criteria. In the example above, suppose the highway link was built not at the high-productivity port, but instead, because of political considerations, in a region that has a less-busy port with little congestion. While more people in the less-productive region are employed in the construction of the facility, people in the more-productive region are likely to lose jobs, and the overall effect is likely to be negative. That is precisely why a "bridge to nowhere" in one particular state is a poor national investment even though it may benefit construction workers and others where it is built. In Los Angeles, the Alameda Corridor freight rail project greatly improved connectivity between the ports and the ground freight shipment system, but some of its benefits must be offset by calculating the growth that it redirected away from other ports such as Seattle or Oakland, given that shipping is a highly competitive economic sector.
(Martin, Spring 2011, Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering and City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley and of the University of California Transportation Center, and former ACCESS: The magazine of UCTC, “Transportation, Jobs, and Economic Growth,” http://www.uctc.net/access/38/access38_transportation_growth.shtml, Accessed 6-29-12, CAS) One way to judge a public investment is to determine whether or not it generates a rate of return to society that exceeds the return earned on other investments in the private or public sectors. Resources for government transportation investments are ultimately drawn from citizens and businesses through taxes or fees (like tolls), or borrowing. Had these dollars not been collected for transportation investments, they would have been put to other uses. Thus, the dollars used for these public investments constitute foregone opportunities to earn returns through private investments in businesses, or public investments in other programs ranging from schools to national parks. To be worthwhile undertakings, transportation investments should demonstrate that they raise the standard of living in the future as much, or more than, alternative private or public sector uses of the funds. To ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars, responsible officials should choose those projects yielding the highest returns. Most often that means transportation dollars should be spent on programs that most enhance long-term economic productivity. Transportation investment takes jobs away from other sectorsWachs, Institute of Transportation Studies director, 11 (Martin, Spring 2011, Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering and City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley and of the University of California Transportation Center, and former ACCESS: The magazine of UCTC, “Transportation, Jobs, and Economic Growth,” http://www.uctc.net/access/38/access38_transportation_growth.shtml, Accessed 6-29-12, CAS) By building an effective transportation network, government transportation spending draws jobs to those industries that benefit from the investment. At the same time, this shift of resources moves jobs away from activities that would have been financed in the absence of the transportation investment. So while transportation investment can "create jobs," it can also destroy them. The overall effect is positive only when it creates more and better jobs, or more and better economic activity, than it eliminates. Transportation investment shifts jobs from other sectorsWachs, Institute of Transportation Studies director, 11 (Martin, Spring 2011, Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering and City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley and of the University of California Transportation Center, and former ACCESS: The magazine of UCTC, “Transportation, Jobs, and Economic Growth,” http://www.uctc.net/access/38/access38_transportation_growth.shtml, Accessed 6-29-12, CAS) Determining whether a project's effects are going to be positive or negative can be difficult. A transportation investment might shift jobs, not just across industries and sectors, but also across counties and states. Even a transportation investment that destroys more jobs than it creates can look good, especially in the short term, from the perspective of the winning state or city. Gains and losses might be unevenly distributed, temporally as well as spatially. For example, building an ill-advised rail line might give a local economy a short-term boost in employment, only to saddle taxpayers with large operating deficits in the future. Water Infrastructure TradeOffNIB transportation infrastructure funding would crowd out water funding – water can’t provide revenue and doesn’t competePuentes, Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program senior fellow, & Istrate, Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative senior research analyst and associate fellow, 9 (Robert and Emilia, Brookings Institution, "Investing for Success Examining a Federal Capital Budget and a National Infrastructure Bank," December 2009, p. 16, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/1210_infrastructure_puentes/1210_infrastructure_puentes.pdf, accessed 6-25-12, CNM) Sectors. There is also a concern that an NIB would favor transportation over other infrastructure modes, due to potentially larger projects and associated revenue streams. The wastewater and drink- ing water advocates are worried that water projects would not be able to compete with transportation, because the water projects have a localized effect and usually do not reach the size of transportation construction projects. KritiksEquity K LinkProjects wouldn’t be selected for social benefits- only based on profitMallett et al, Specialist in Transportation Policy, 2011 (William, Steven Maguire, Specialist in Public Finance, and Kevin R. Kosar, Analyst in American National Government, 12-14-11, Congressional Research Service, “National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42115.pdf, p. 16, accessed 6-23-12, LH) Selecting projects through an infrastructure bank has possible disadvantages as well as advantages. First, it would direct financing to projects that are the most viable financially rather than those with greatest social benefits. Projects that are likely to generate a financial return through charging users, such as urban water systems, wastewater treatment, and toll roads, would be favored if financial viability is the key element for project selection. Conversely, projects that offer extensive spillover benefits for which it is difficult to fully charge users, such as public transit projects and levees, would be disfavored. 53 Transportation infrastructure exacerbates inequalities between people in cities and townsWachs, Institute of Transportation Studies director, 11 (Martin, Spring 2011, Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering and City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley and of the University of California Transportation Center, and former ACCESS: The magazine of UCTC, “Transportation, Jobs, and Economic Growth,” http://www.uctc.net/access/38/access38_transportation_growth.shtml, Accessed 6-29-12, CAS) The Interstate Highway System, the nation's greatest transportation investment project, created jobs near interchanges when new businesses took advantage of the improved accessibility. At the same time, other towns that were bypassed "died on the vine." Most analysts and lay citizens believe that, overall, the gains exceeded the losses by an enormous margin, and thus that the Interstate System was justified as a national investment. But not every city, road, or interchange benefited equally. Equity LinkWe must examine the problems that Stimulus can have for racial inequityJohnson, Columbia Law School Associate Professor of Law, 9 (Olatunde C.A., “Stimulus and Civil Rights,” [Vol. 111:154, Columbia Law Review, 2009, http://columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/111/1/Johnson.pdf, p. 185-188, Date Accessed: 6/27/12, JS) The speed of spending can operate to exclude small and disadvantaged businesses, including those run by minorities and women in transportation development programs. The Recovery Act requires states to use fifty percent of their transportation funds within 120 days of apportionment, and to give funding priority to projects that can be completed within three years. 155 Additionally, many transportation projects are subject to longstanding federal affirmative action requirements. 156 Yet, in part because of the priority placed on quick disbursement of funds (as well as some states’ emphasis on funding rural projects), some states are failing to meet goals for equitable hiring of minorities and women. 157C. Implications This account reveals the potential effect of specific stimulus programs on racial inequity. Ultimately, this Essay does not claim that the stimulus will necessarily lead to racial harm, but seeks to point out specific areas in which the stimulus risks reproducing and entrenching forms of racial inequality by excluding particular groups from full participation in the benefits of federal programs. Given these risks, policymakers and equity advocates should think about the stimulus’s broad economic recovery goal as an occasion to interrupt, rather than reproduce, patterns of inequity and to advance social inclusion. The goal here is to suggest that the stimulus—particularly given its size—should prompt a set of questions about federal spending programs’ effects on equity. These questions include who benefits from federal spending, and how federal spending operates to shape patterns of equality in various communities. These questions should be part of the executive and legislative design of federal spending programs. But, as a practical matter, it is too late to reshape the stimulus’s essential design. Instead these questions remain relevant to the federal administrative agencies implementing the stimulus, as well as to state and local governments that will spend stimulus funds. In the next Part, this Essay examines the capacity of legal tools and norms to prompt governments to examine the equity effects of federal spending Ruralism KBank’s projects exclude rural areasMallett et al, Specialist in Transportation Policy, 2011 (William, Steven Maguire, Specialist in Public Finance, and Kevin R. Kosar, Analyst in American National Government, 12-14-11, Congressional Research Service, “National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42115.pdf, p. 16, accessed 6-23-12, LH) Third, financing projects through an infrastructure bank may serve to exclude small urban and rural areas because large, expensive projects tend to be located in major urban centers. Because of this, an infrastructure bank might be set up to have different rules for supporting projects in rural areas, and possibly also to require a certain amount of funding directed to projects in rural areas. For example, S. 652 proposes a threshold of $25 million for projects in rural areas instead of $100 million in urban areas. Even so, the $25 million threshold could exclude many rural projects TopicalityItsBank could be independently owned, not USFG investmentAbraham, member of the Council of Economic Advisors for the white House, Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for the White House, and Shapiro, member of the Council of Economic Advisors for the white House, 12 (Katharine, Alan, Carl, 3-23-2012, A NEW ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT, Department of the Treasury, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf, 6-23-12, p.23, LPS) Congress has established numerous banking entities taking a wide range of institutional forms. To cite four examples: • The National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility was established in 1978 through statute (12 U.S.C. 1795) as a cooperative corporation that is owned by federal credit unions. It is managed by the board of the National Credit Union Administration (12 U.S.C. 1751) and can borrow from the U.S. Treasury. Its purpose is narrow—to serve as a lender of last resort to credit unions needing liquidity due to unforeseen or unusual circumstances.55 • Government-sponsored enterprises, such as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac), are structured as privately held, for-profit corporations designed to serve a public purpose.56 Some of these entities were designed to be investor owned, while others, such as the Federal Home Loan Bank System and the Farm Credit System, are owned cooperatively by their borrowers. The extent of direct federal involvement varies. • 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 0.66 Mb. Share with your friends:
|