July/August 2017 – BizVoice/Indiana Chamber
65
Private activity bonds were used “to help
build the East End Bridge from the east end
of Louisville to southern Indiana and to
rework traffic patterns on the Indiana side of
the river,” he explains. “So we know that
financing mechanism is an effective one.”
Carson’s firm belief is “private investment
can’t tackle most transportation projects.
Certainly not without a robust public funding
apparatus alongside.
“It has almost no applicability, especially
for smaller projects without revenue
streams – like rural highways. … It just
doesn’t make sense.”
Young agrees that private capital isn’t always
going to be the solution, but stresses his concern
over adding to the $20 trillion national debt.
“In short, we need public-private
partnerships, but they can’t pay for
everything. They tend to work in certain
types of settings, where you have a lot of
traffic and predictable traffic patterns.”
Young’s final thought on P3s: “We
should look beyond our own shores for
private capital. I see real opportunity there.”
Separately, the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program,
which provides credit assistance to significant
projects, is set for an increase of a billion
dollars every year.
Young says TIFIA is very popular and
he’s heard from mayors and contractors in
Indiana who wanted that preserved or expanded.
“That merits strong consideration for inclusion
in whatever infrastructure legislation might
wind its way through Congress.”
Power to the states
The administration has made it clear that
transferring more responsibilities to states is
desired.
In the budget overview, it notes that the
federal government “acts as a complicated,
costly middleman between the collection of
revenue and the expenditures of those funds
by states and localities.”
All three delegation members are eager
to see Indiana have more control.
“If Indiana has shown the country anything,
it’s that oftentimes state-level solutions are
better. When Washington comes up with
solutions, there ought to be flexibility imbedded
within those so that states can tailor
infrastructure investments and other public
policies to the unique needs of their own
population,” Young describes.
Carson cautions that there will need to
be proper federal oversight.
“We don’t want these funds going to
different states without any stipulations,
because if there aren’t stipulations attached to
the funding, you’re going to have another
slush fund where roads and bridges can be
ignored and that money is going to other
areas ... but states know their needs better
than the federal government.”
Rokita has no hesitation in the matter:
“I’m completely comfortable with devolving
as much power to the states as possible.”
About that bipartisanship…
Though it’s third in the queue behind
health care and tax reforms, infrastructure
appears to be the only one among them with
any chance for bipartisan support. The question
is what effects the other two battles and the
heightened political environment will have by
the time the focus turns to infrastructure in
the fall or early 2018.
Carson announces: “We have over 10,000
roads and bridges that need to be repaved,
resurfaced, rebuilt in our country. … I’m
willing to work with anyone to revitalize
American’s infrastructure and provide the
necessary foundation for job growth and
opportunities.
“The federal government needs to invest
in the basic needs of the American people and
not make cuts to already limited resources, I
know that my Republican colleagues are on
this European austerity push, but we’re not
Europe. We’re America.”
Rokita quips, “Quite honestly, the talk
we are getting out of Democrats right now
isn’t on infrastructure. It starts off with
Russia, Russia, Russia and then the fourth
thing is (former FBI director Jim) Comey and
the fifth is 'hell no on health care' – and then
it’s down the road from there.
“My hope is that they relieve themselves
of their partisanship and work with us on all
these things.”
Last word
For Carson, public transportation is top
of mind for his constituents.
“(It) spurs economic growth in
communities. For every $1 spent, it generates
$4 in economic returns. I’m deeply concerned
about (where) public transportation (fits in
the picture).
“In a very real sense, a lot of my
Republican colleagues are on board because
they come from urban centers or rural
districts that have growing transportation
needs,” he insists. “And it’s especially
important with millennials; they don’t drive.”
Young’s goal is simple: “I want Congress
to look for every opportunity to expand the
scope of our investment beyond direct federal
spending.
“That will probably mean empowering
the states to do more with their own
investments through regulatory relief and
possibly through some programmatic changes.”
Rokita also returns to his fiscally
conservative roots. “Our biggest threat and
the most unfair thing we’re doing to the next
generation is not paying for the things that we
are doing with money. That has to be part of
the discussion.
“I can certainly argue that a road, a bridge,
a lock, a dam – those kinds of things – are
good investments. Even if they aren’t paid for
immediately, the next generation will be able
to use them. So in that sense, this kind of
government spending is better instead of let’s
say food stamps, which doesn’t really help the
economy long term or the next generation.”
RESOURCES:
Read more about the President’s infrastructure overview in his budget proposal at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget(under fact sheets) |
Sen. Todd Young at young.senate.gov | Congressman André Carson at carson.house.gov | Congressman Todd Rokita at rokita.house.gov
Senator Todd Young hopes
that “as we approach
infrastructure investment in
a bipartisan way, everyone
will agree not all states are
created equally and have
all the same preferences
and needs.”