Harry Moroz has a post on the DMI Blog about the need for a national infrastructure bank as a means of building a lasting system for improving, maintaining, and creating our infrastructure:

The National Infrastructure Bank is a first step in creating a coherent vision of American infrastructure. First, the use of bonds – rather than a pay-as-you-go system that relies on yearly revenues – allows the federal government to develop a stable, long-term strategy for economic growth based on infrastructure improvements. Such a financing stream is less subject to political whims and to revenues, which fluctuate with the economy and with legislative action (and inaction). Second, federal funding for infrastructure – in particular, for the transportation system – is often diverted by state governments to other (sometimes) worthy, yet non-infrastructure, projects. Puentes of Brookings points out that the Government Accountability Office has called the federal transportation fund a “cash transfer, general purpose grant program,” and that “the U.S. code neuters the federal role and states specifically that the appropriation of highway funds ‘shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which projects shall be federally financed.’” The National Infrastructure Bank would ensure that federal funds are used by state and local governments for specific infrastructure projects, rather than diverted to make up for, say, underfunded federal mandates.

Perhaps most importantly, the selection criteria required by the National Infrastructure Bank would encourage the federal government to undertake projects that are significant to the country’s long-term well-being: rather than stop-gap measures to repair existing problems, such projects would take into account new challenges like climate change, the growing importance of urban areas, and the need for more affordable housing, while at the same time confronting the more typical concerns associated with economic growth (increased air, highway, and port traffic). A database with details about each infrastructure project and its funding would provide at least some public oversight.

The National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007 (S. 1926), introduced by Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel, would go a long way towards solving America’s infrastructure construction needs. David Sirota recently noted that Barack Obama had unveiled a similar plan for an infrastructure bank, with the duel goals of adding two million new jobs and building a better giving America the system of roads, bridges, and tunnels that we deserve. Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton, are now both co-sponsors of the Dodd bill,  S. 1926,  a sign that there is will at the top of the Democratic Party for better using money currently spent rebuilding Iraq to rebuild America.