SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Dear Gene

POLITICS FEBRUARY 3, 2011

Dear Gene

TO:          GENE SPERLING
FROM:    BILL GALSTON
SUBJ:       INFRASTRUCTURE
DATE:     FEBRUARY 3, 2011

It feels like a lifetime ago that you and I shared a windowless broomcloset in the West Wing. I assume your digs are more spacious and better illuminated now. In any event, congratulations on returning to a position you occupied with such distinction in the Clinton administration.

The purpose of this memo is to inform you—in case you don’t already know—that hell has frozen over: Late last week, Tom Donohue and Rich Trumka issued a joint statement applauding the president’s call for increased infrastructure investment and urging both Democrats and Republicans to support it. If there was ever a cause whose time has come, this is it. It has to be done big, and it has to be done right—big because it’s not just another program, but a paradigm change; right because it won’t work if it sinks into the morass of the congressional appropriations process, out-of-date formula allocations, and logrolling project selections. Let me explain—briefly, because I know how busy you are right now.

Despite short-term gains, the consumer-driven model of growth on which we’ve relied for decades has hit a wall. We need to shift from spending to saving, from consumption to production, and from deficit-financed imports to aggressive export promotion. We need to invest in the basic building blocks of productivity. And we need to focus on generating good jobs that can’t be exported.

Infrastructure investment can contribute to all these objectives, and the need is great. Because we’ve neglected our infrastructure for more than three decades, the best estimates suggest that we face an accumulated gap—between what we should have invested and what we actually did—of more than $2 trillion. Anyone who has traveled outside the United States in recent years knows that we no longer have a world-class infrastructure. And time-wasting, productivity-sapping bottlenecks are building up, especially in transportation.

During his 2008 campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama advanced an innovative idea to deal with this situation: a national infrastructure bank, which would mobilize private money to finance large, worthy, long-term infrastructure projects that are capable of turning a profit in the free market. In his 2011 State of the Union, President Obama reopened this issue without specifically mentioning the bank. Now is the time to flesh it out and hit it hard.

By this I mean two things. First, get beyond what Hollywood calls the elevator speech, and send Congress a framework for actual legislation. Bills introduced in both the House and Senate within the past few years could serve as a useful baseline. And there are lots of outside experts who would be willing to help out if needed.

Second, specifically include the infrastructure bank in the president’s forthcoming FY2012 budget proposal. You know as well as anyone that if it’s not in the budget, it’s not real. (Remember welfare reform in President Clinton’s first budget proposal?)

Of course, seed money for the bank is going to cost something. And given the rising pressure for fiscal restraint, you’re not in a position to significantly increase spending in order to stand it up. So consider redirecting the necessary amounts from existing infrastructure projects, which neither leverage private capital nor endure the rigors of a market test. As you do, make it clear that the bank would be a public-private partnership, not a government-run enterprise, and would enjoy neither explicit nor implicit public guarantees. If investors aren’t willing to assume market risks, the projects in question shouldn’t be funded: period, full stop.

A final thought. Programmatic changes are sand castles on the beach, easily washed away when the tide changes. All the heavy lifting you did in the 1990s to turn deficits into surpluses went for naught as soon as a new administration took power. As FDR understood, institutional innovations fortify long-term policies against short-term political shifts—and all of the investments President Obama has already made in the economy could easily be defunded. An infrastructure bank, however, would institutionalize the development of public goods in a way that simply passing a budget cannot. And it would be large first step toward the reformed governance that President Obama has so forcefully advocated.

 

William Galston is a contributing editor at The New Republic and a current senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 5 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

5 comments

An Infrastructure bank is a good idea and we need to spend lots of money on it. The current House won't pass it though. The Repubs will make their usual arguements deriding public investment and calling names. The Tea types know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Hopefully when the surface transportation bill comes up for renewal and I believe it is soon , it can be generously funded. We need to do another round of stimulus type spending on the energy grid, scientific research , and infrastructure. Including upgrading our ports, rail and airports. Wishful thinking in this environment.

- alanwilkov

February 3, 2011 at 12:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow! Galston. Who knew.

- rayward

February 3, 2011 at 7:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I like saying that our problems are caused in part by the reduced capital gains and dividends rate which is discouraging investors from investing in small businesses where their share of profits will be subject to a possible 35% rate as opposed to a maximum 15% rate in the stock market. But I like high speed magnetic trains myself. They are expensive at first, low maintenance, but very nice.

- Nusholtz

February 3, 2011 at 8:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The US, unlike other western nations, has difficulty accepting large government sponsored/funded capital projects because the US is so large geographically and culturally. We have a tendency to view the success or failure of a project from a nationwide perspective, which means few projects are ever a "success". For this and other reasons, I am a fan of the mega-region concept that Richard Florida has promoted. Most business is conducted within regions; the midwest (industrial) and northeast (finance) being obvious examples, the southeast a less obvious one. In the southeast, I can envision a modern transportation infrastructure (primarily rail) connecting all the major hubs, Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham, Savannah, Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando, Miami, facilitating a boom in economic activity. And what do I look to as precedent? The interstate highway system built in the 1950s and 1960s. Those who resided in the southeast before and after were witnesses to an historic economic transformation, as the region went from being remote and moribund to being dynamic and prosperous. If Eisenhower can have that kind of vision back then, why can't more opinion leaders today.

- rayward

February 3, 2011 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is there a private bank to get blacks and Latinos (legal) hired? Because if there is a crisis out there, 50% unemployment for young black workers ages 16-25 would definitely be it.

- RedState

February 7, 2011 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close