|
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 07:37 AM by karynnj
The proposal was presented by John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts; Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas; and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia. The bank would lend money to build big-ticket transportation, water and energy projects that have a clear public benefit. The loans, or loan guarantees, would be designed to attract private capital as well. In fact, at least half a project’s financing would have to come from the private sector. As much as $640 billion could be leveraged this way over the next decade, proponents say.
<snip>
By providing low-cost capital to states, cities and authorities, the bank would help these strapped governments kick-start projects that are now unaffordable, while attracting investments from pension and private-equity funds that are looking for stable money-generating ventures in which to invest. “We can either build, and compete, and create jobs for our people,” said Mr. Kerry, “or we can fold up, and let everybody else win. I don’t think that’s America.” The bank was backed by unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21mon1.html?_r=1&hp
The op-ed speaks of the failing infrastructure and how this bill can create jobs and start working on these needed projects. It explains how it will have $10 billion to loan, not to give in grants as Obama's budget proposes - which was $30 billion in grants.
(I am not sure how mush I can quote here - especially as the NYT is trying a new business model that charges after 20 items a month are read - although I don't know when that starts.)
The Worcester Telegram has a negative editorial, called run on the bank. As one who has driven through Worcester, during the 4 years my daughter was there, it is hard to understand why they don't see that infrastructure needs to be fixed. (In fairness, they can for using money that they have in the budget directly - ignoring that the Republicans would never vote for the $30 billion Obama is asking for - much less the real amounts needed.
If that kind of big-government spending spree sounds familiar, it should. Mr. Kerry’s plan would differ only in its details from previous government stimulus spending plans. The tired old theory is much the same: Uncle Sam puts up some taxpayer dollars, hires bureaucrats, writes rules, chooses projects, and waits for the private sector to play the game by his rules.
We won’t argue that such an approach has never worked before. The Interstate Highway System, championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is one example of a government-directed enterprise that more or less achieved its purpose, even if it did cost hundreds of billions of dollars and took more than 35 years to complete.
But from the days of FDR’s New Deal alphabet soup to the waves of stimulus under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Washington has consistently demonstrated that acronym-laden agencies armed with bushels of rules and drawing blank checks on the American taxpayers are among the least efficient ways to get anything done.
And a Massachusetts senator, hailing from a state whose independent authorities have in many cases run amok for the better part of a half century, really ought to know better than to call his latest entity the “American Infrastructure Financing Authority.”
http://www.telegram.com/article/20110321/NEWS/103210328/1020/OPINION
(This also shows that they do not understand what is proposed - in fact, it is not at all like the Eisenhower highway system, because the Republicans would never fund anything as they did for Ike in the 1950s - 1960 and beyond. )
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
