In this prospective new
model, routine highway maintenance and system
preservation would continue to be funded on a pay-as-you-go
basis with current state and local tax revenue as supplemented with
federal-aid highway dollars from the Highway Trust Fund
. However, capital-intensive
multi-year reconstruction programs and new capacity
expansion projects --- investments that are beyond the
states' fiscal capacity to fund out of current revenue ---
would be financed largely through public-private
partnerships employing long-term credit and availability
payments.
Provision of credit would remain a
shared responsibility of the public and private sectors. Private
Activity Bonds, the TIFIA program and State Infrastructure
Banks would continue to serve as the main public sources
of credit assistance while additional public credit
facilities could be created, if need be, to handle a growing backlog
of reconstruction needs. Potential candidates include Sen. Mark
Warner's National Infrastructure Financing Authority (IFA)
and Rep.John Delaney's $50 billion American Infrastructure
Fund (AIF). The latter proposal would capitalize the AIF by selling
bonds to U.S. companies. In exchange for purchasing the bonds,
companies would be able to repatriate a portion of their overseas
earnings tax-free. (A somewhat similar approach forms part of
Rep.Camp's tax reform proposal).
The Highway Trust Fund--- freed from the obligation to fund new infrastructure and large reconstruction programs on a cash basis---would be placed on a more stable financial footing, while an ample supply of long-term credit ---both public and private---would reduce the need for contract authority and multi-year transportation authorizations. Meanwhile, states and localities would gain more independence to plan and fund infrastructure improvements on their own terms, free of excessive federal regulatory oversight.
The Highway Trust Fund--- freed from the obligation to fund new infrastructure and large reconstruction programs on a cash basis---would be placed on a more stable financial footing, while an ample supply of long-term credit ---both public and private---would reduce the need for contract authority and multi-year transportation authorizations. Meanwhile, states and localities would gain more independence to plan and fund infrastructure improvements on their own terms, free of excessive federal regulatory oversight.
It's a highly plausible answer in our judgment to the
nation's search for a long-term solution to the
infrastructure
funding problem.
Kenneth Orski
Editor/Publisher
Innovation NewsBriefs (celebrating our 25th year of publication)