There's talk of an 'Infrastructure Bank'

Post #347,144 by dmcarls 9/1/11 9:59:50 AM Reply	There's talk of an 'Infrastructure Bank' A national infrastructure bank that would entice private investors into road and rail projects could be a major part of the jobs package ... http://www.legallang...oems/onehossshay/ [...] You see, of course, if youÂre not a dunce, How it went to pieces all at once, Â All at once, and nothing first, Â Just as bubbles do when they burst. From Wiki: "Today, the Chicago River has 38 movable bridges spanning it, down from a peak of 52 bridges. These bridges are of several different types, including trunnion bascule, scherzer rolling lift, swing bridges, and vertical lift bridges. Better hope that these are well-maintained!
Post #347,145 by Another Scott 9/1/11 10:43:13 AM Reply	Would be good. A "capital budget" as well? It's stupid that we lump annual on-going budgeting in with multi-year projects. Intuitively, we need a "capital budget" if we really want the federal budget to be more like a "family budget". For instance, people who make $50k a year don't suddenly go bankrupt when they take out a $200k 30 year mortgage... Unfortunately, all of the analysis to date indicates that a federal capital budget will create more problems than it solves (e.g. the federal government doesn't own most of the capital stuff it pays for; mixtures of accounting methods; etc.). http://www.brookings...bank_istrate.aspx It's obvious that we need to spend a lot more on infrastructure than we've been doing. There are sensible ways to do so; this is a solvable problem if we have the will... <sigh> Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,195 by jay 9/2/11 9:02:25 AM Reply	Could be good or bad Getting private investing involved in building national infrastructure is dangerous territory. Private companies that get involved in these sorts of things are very good are writing contracts that end up hosing the public in the long run. Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!