Skip to comments.Obama sinkhole recipe: Hey, letís create a new, government-run infrastructure bank!
Posted on 09/07/2010 10:54:01 AM PDT by Nachum
Its actually not a new idea. Its an old, recycled one borrowed from corruptocrat Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd, who sponsored a bill to create a federally-operated infrastructure bank in 2007. President Obama tried to get $5 billion in funding for one in his 2010 budget and $4 billion is proposed for one in his 2011 budget. Democrat Rep. Rosa De Lauro is pushing a House version and her expansive, pipe-dream plans tell you all you need to know about what a disastrous, costly slush fund this thing would inevitably grow into:
Ms. DeLauros plan would create an infrastructure bank that would be part of the United States Treasury, where it would attract money from institutional investors, then channel the funds to projects selected by a panel. The program, which would make loans much like the World Bank, would finance projects with the potential to transform whole regions, or even the national economy, the way the interstate highway system and the first transcontinental railway once did.
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
The only reason for the government to create an infrastructure bank is because the lending would be uneconomic for a regular bank to do it.
Oh, they can claim that infrastructure is so specialized that it requires knowledgeable bankers, but the realty is that credit decisions and loan forgiveness will be easier and directed to favored groups at below market rates. Remember also, if the government is involved, the projects will be staffed by union labor, working slowly at “prevailing wage”, so that’s another aspect of the giveaway.
Rep. Rosa De Lauro is my congress witch.
Hangs head in shame.
No need for shame. I had Henry Waxman for years.
Los Angeles county is a cess pool of democRATs
“The only reason for the government to create an infrastructure bank is because the lending would be uneconomic for a regular bank to do it.”
Actually, the principal motivation is to have yet another government program from which to skim campaign contributions. Anyone who thinks that Congress would desist from overtly or covertly steering bank funds to favored projects/interests is probably too naive to qualify for voting in this country. And, surprise, surprise, those to whom money is steered will find a way to share their loot by making generous campaign donations to the members of Congress who were the most skilled at steering.
This is how banking and Medicare have worked in the past. When the government is in the position to regulate hundreds of billions of dollars of economic activity, it’s pretty straightforward to convert that power into campaign contributions to members of Congress who will ensure federal regulators aren’t too hard on favored interests.
Got you both beat. My CongressSlime is Dick Neal, Duval’s Mini-Me.
I don't know enough about the concept of an "infrastructure bank" to know if it's a good idea or not, but I disagree with your statement here. One reason for the government to create an infrastructure bank is that funds loaned from the bank would be repaid with government revenues -- i.e., future fuel tax revenue, user fees, etc.
It’ll never fly. Too many John Murtha-types in Congress who will never hand over this kind of spending power to the executive branch.
she is a beast
Porky. He looks like he could go elbow deep picking his nose.