Posts Tagged ‘
Infrastructure ’
Monday, October 25th, 2010
Lee Drutman
Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Lee Drutman
One hears a lot about the “enthusiasm gap” this election. But maybe the better term is “enthusiasm lack.” The vast majority of the American electorate is not at all jazzed up about their choices, and even if Republicans take back the House next Tuesday, it will hardly be because they inspired the American electorate. This is good news for Democrats in 2012, if they are smart enough to take advantage.
Consider the latest Associated Press-GfK Poll. With just a week until the election, one third of all likely voters say that they either haven’t yet made up their minds, or they are leaning in favor of one candidate but could still change their minds, though these undecideds are leaning slightly towards Republicans. This is hardly the sign of a passionate electorate.
Of course, midterm elections almost always have lower turnout than presidential elections anyway – typically about 40 percent of registered voters turnout in mid-term years, as opposed to 60 percent in presidential years. That missing 20 percent (or a third of those who vote in presidential elections) are often younger people and poorer people, but also those who tend to pay minimal attention to politics either because none of the candidates inspire them or they can’t see the difference.
Some quick back-of-the-envelope math: If 40 percent of the electorate winds up voting next week, but of that 40 percent only two-thirds feels strongly one way or another, we’re now down to roughly 27 percent of the electorate that has a strong feeling about the outcome. Since Republicans are doing better than Democrats among likely voters, let’s say that 15 percent of the electorate consists of Republican voters who currently feel strongly about how the election turns out. These are your hard-core, Tea Party-type Republicans who a Republican House majority would be representing.
Probably the only way this is a sustainable governing strategy is if the rest of the electorate remains so alienated and cynical that it continues to stay home while hard-core Republicans try to dismantle the idea of the modern state. Maybe this is the Republicans’ plan: make Washington so dysfunctional that nobody sees the point in voting anymore.
But here’s the more likely scenario: The presidential election of 2012 will bring out many of the voters who stayed home in 2010. Democrats will win back seats because turnout among registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent moderates will increase. (When Obama tells crowds ““If everybody who voted in 2008 shows up in 2010, we will win this election,” he is probably right.)
But in order for this to happen, Democrats have a challenge: they need to stay sane. They need to let the Republicans say and even try to do some of the ridiculous things that only 15 percent of the total electorate supports, all the while reinforcing how moderate and reasonable they are being, and not getting dragged into the gutter.
When the economy recovers (as it is already starting to), and the existential angst and fears of economic uncertainty dissipates, the Democrats (if they can refrain from counter-ranting and be the adults in the room) will come out looking much better, and will have a real mandate to proactively solve the major problems facing our country, like modernizing to meet the energy and infrastructure needs of the 21st century.
There will be, of course, many recriminations next Wednesday within the Democratic faithful that Obama didn’t do this, or didn’t do that. But the past is the past.
The hand that Democrats are being dealt is this: Republicans are likely to win the House on a platform that appeals to maybe 15 percent of the total electorate (though 30-40 percent of the active electorate). But as long as Democrats can be savvy, remaining moderate and letting hard-core Republicans fulminate hysterically as only they know how about absurdities like repealing the 17th Amendment, 2012 will be a very good year to be a Democrat.
Photo credit: Rakka
Tags: 17th Amendment, 2010 midterm election, 2012, 2012 presidential election, 21st century., American electorate, Associated Press-GfK Poll, Campaigns and elections, Democratic-leaning, Democrats, economic uncertainty, economy recovers, energy, enthusiasm gap, enthusiasm lack, hard-core Republicans, independent moderates, Infrastructure, modern state, modernizing, Obama, presidential elections, Republican House, republicans, sustainable governing strategy, Tea Party-type Republicans, the House, voters turnout
Posted in
Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Issues |
1 Comment »
Thursday, October 14th, 2010
Scott Thomasson
Scott Thomasson is the economic and domestic policy director for the Progressive Policy Institute.
Follow @st_ppi
by Scott Thomasson
Constellation Energy announced last weekend that it is pulling out of negotiations with the Obama administration over its pending application for Department of Energy loan guarantees to build a new reactor unit at its existing Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland. This means that for now, Constellation has scrapped all plans to expand the plant, which would have brought 1600 megawatts of low-carbon power to the market and thousands of jobs to the local economy.
What drove Constellation to walk away from further negotiations is the position taken by the White House Office of Management and Budget over the cost of the “credit subsidy fee” Constellation must pay for the guarantee. OMB set the fee at $880 million, or 11.6 percent of the total guarantee. OMB says this fee accurately reflects the risk to taxpayers of default by Constellation, which may or may not be accurate, even presuming that shielding taxpayers from 100% of the default risk is an appropriate goal. The problem is that no one ever expected the loan guarantee program to be priced so high, most notably the energy companies that have spent years now tied up in the application process. Constellation had argued for a fee closer to 1-2 percent, and DOE had previously made statements that indicated it was basically in agreement with that fee level, before the Obama White House got involved in the program and indicated it needed greater protections against the risk that the company won’t repay its loans. OMB has demanded a price for those protections that is basically what private lenders would charge (which is high considering the regulatory and cost risks associated with a nuclear power plant–hence the need for the loan guarantee program in the first place).
If you are an opponent of expanding nuclear power, this is great news. It means that after years of hard-fought legislative and regulatory battles in which the nuclear industry made significant headway toward getting the federal government to clear the way for a “nuclear renaissance” in the U.S., yet another battleground has been found to effectively scuttle the entire program for nuclear loan guarantees for the time being. Apparently that new battleground is the arcane world of credit scoring within the federal budget bureaucracy, most notably OMB.
By throwing sand in the gears of this final stage of the bureaucratic approval process, the White House has let the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program grind to a halt after years of promises of support to the industry for badly needed new projects. By all accounts, this controversy appears to be simply a fight between budget bureaucrats that needs to be hashed out publicly and resolved. But a less benign interpretation might suggest a deliberate bias among those in the administration in favor of spending loan guarantee dollars on renewable energy at the expense of nuclear projects. In either case, it is a problem that President Obama could easily fix with leadership from the White House, by making it clear that nuclear power is a national priority that is too important to lose new projects over bureaucratic delays.
Instead of leadership, the White House has responded with unfortunate lack of credible commitment to addressing this issue. According to Bloomberg news, OMB’s spokesperson said administration officials were surprised that Constellation gave up on negotiations. It’s hard to believe they could really be that clueless. Everyone following the nuclear loan guarantee process knew this was a potential deal-killing problem for Constellation and other applicants, especially anyone who read Constellation’s executives say so specifically in the New York times almost a year ago. This issue was raised in Jack Lew’s recent confirmation hearing to take over OMB, and Senate Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman openly criticized the administration in a hearing on September 23 for holding up these loan guarantees. These complaints have been heard coming from several different corners in Washington and the energy industry for months. If I knew enough not to be shocked by Constellation’s move, how did OMB and the White House did not see this coming?
The administration’s handling of the Constellation loan application raises an important question that needs to be answered: just how committed is President Obama and his administration to expanding nuclear power? The president has said nuclear energy is part of his vision of America’s energy future (most notably in a speech ironically delivered in Maryland announcing a nuclear loan guarantee approval), but we have not seen many tangible results that the members of his administration are fully committed to making that vision a reality. After all, the Constellation announcement comes during the same week when the president was stumping for more infrastructure spending and his own economists released a report arguing that now is an ideal time to build large capital projects, both in terms of economic stimulus and low project costs for financing and labor. In the last week, the administration also cleared the way for two new solar energy projects on federal land and, even more notably, announced a $1.3 billion DOE loan guarantee approval for a massive new wind power project. All of these other initiatives this week are important and deserving of the president’s leadership in making them a national priority. But with the news from Constellation coming amidst all this other administration support for new energy and infrastructure projects, the overall picture is too easily misconstrued as the administration coordinating to put a thumb on the scale in favor of everything but nuclear energy.
Given the energy realities we are facing and the president’s own acknowledgments that nuclear energy needs to be part of a low-carbon response to meeting growing demand, President Obama can not afford to let a bureaucratic bean-counting snafu tie up billions of dollars in new investment and tens of thousands of jobs. Hopefully, this issue is essentially a policy glitch in the administration’s energy agenda, rather than something more problematic. But regardless of the cause, if President Obama is serious about including nuclear in our energy mix, then he needs to use the power of his office to take a hard look at these problems–and fix the glitch.
Photo credit: Let idea Compete
Tags: Bloomberg news, bureaucratic, Calvert Cliffs, Clean energy and technology, Constellation Energy, Department of Energy, economic stimulus, energy agenda, energy companies, energy mix, Infrastructure, Jack Lew, Jeff Bingaman, low-carbon power, Maryland, new energy, New York Times, nuclear industry, nuclear power, nuclear renaissance, Obama Administration, Office of Management and Budget, OMB, Senate Energy Chairman, solar energy, taxpayers, White House, wind power
Posted in
Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix |
2 Comments »
Tuesday, October 12th, 2010
Will Marshall
Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Will Marshall
President Obama’s call yesterday for $50 billion in new transportation spending is politically risky, given public worries about government spending and debt. But if linked to a strategic and sustained strategy for modernizing the nation’s infrastructure, it could signal the start of America’s economic comeback.
Even more important than the money, however, is an Obama initiative that didn’t get as much media play: a proposed National Infrastructure Bank. It is the key not only to leveraging business capital – U.S. companies are sitting on $2 trillion in potential “private stimulus” money – but also to making sure we invest that money wisely.
The president said he would ask the lame-duck Congress next month to approve the $50 billion measure, which would front-load money that otherwise would be spread over the life of a six-year surface transportation bill. He left little doubt his immediate goal is to goose the pace of the agonizingly slow economic recovery.
“Nearly one in five construction workers is still unemployed and needs a job. And that makes absolutely no sense when so much of America needs rebuilding,” Obama told reporters at the White House on Memorial Day. Attempting to preempt Republican objections that infrastructure spending is simply stimulus is drag, Obama noted that “Investing in infrastructure is something members of both parties have always supported.”
Maybe so, but it’s worth noting that the word “infrastructure” appears nowhere in the GOP’s 48-page Pledge to America. What’s more, Republicans are likely to over-interpret likely midterm gains as vindication of their attacks on Obama as a big spender, so good luck getting them to vote for infrastructure in the lame duck.
That’s a shame, because spending on infrastructure is both stimulus and investment. It could get more Americans working now, but it is also essential to building our country’s long-term capacity to compete in fast growing global markets for high speed rail, civilian nuclear energy, clean cars, intelligent transport systems and renewable fuels.
The federal government, of course, is constrained by enormous deficits and a growing national debt. That’s why we need a National Infrastructure Bank, which would structure public-private deals to fund big capital projects that can generate real economic returns. As noted by an economic analysis the White House released yesterday:
“There is currently very little direct private investment in our nation’s highway and transit systems due to the current method of funding infrastructure, which lacks effective mechanism to attract and repay direct private investment in specific infrastructure projects. … A National Infrastructure Bank would also perform a rigorous analysis that would result in support for projects that yield the greatest returns to society and are most likely to deliver long-run economic benefits that justify the up-front investments.”
An infrastructure bank, along with new public seed capital and a third element of the Obama infrastructure initiative – merging the many stovepiped “modal” transportation funding streams so public dollars can be used strategically – begin at last to push the economic debate in a constructive direction. The two great challenges America faces now are reviving our economic dynamism and shrinking a massive overhang of public debt. To meet them, the Obama administration needs to fashion an ambitious, “cut and invest” strategy aimed at slowing health care and entitlement spending generally, and using public dollars to leverage massive private investment in productivity-enhancing infrastructure.
That’s why President Obama should press ahead with his infrastructure plan, despite the political fallout from the midterm election. If Republicans want to frame the economic debate as a choice between more tax cuts and rebuilding the common foundations of American prosperity, so much the better. That’s one progressives can win.
Photo credit: Center for Neighborhood Technology
Tags: big capital projects, business capital, civilian nuclear energy, clean cars, cut and invest, debt, deficits, Deficits and debt, economic dynamism, economic recovery, federal government, global markets, GOP, government spending, Health care, high-speed rail, highway and transit systems, Infrastructure, infrastructure plan, intelligent transport systems, investment, long-term capacity, Memorial Day, midterm, midterm election, National Infrastructure Bank, new transportation spending, Pledge to America, President Obama, private stimulus, progressives, public-private, renewable fuels, Republican, stimulus, Transportation, transportation bill, White House
Posted in
Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix, Fiscal Responsibility, Issues |
4 Comments »
Thursday, October 7th, 2010
Mark Reutter
PPI Fellow Mark Reutter is the former editor of
Railroad History and author of
Making Steel: Sparrows Point and the Rise and Ruin of American Industrial Might (2005, rev. ed.).
by Mark Reutter
America’s transportation infrastructure is enfeebled, Washington’s transportation policy is broken, and we need to start building fast trains.
While that might be old news to readers of Progressive Fix, what is news is who’s saying it this week: Samuel Skinner, Secretary of Transportation under George H.W. Bush, and Norman Mineta, DOT Secretary under George W. Bush, were co-chairs of a conference at the University of Virginia behind a new report making this case. Mary E. Peters, Mineta’s successor under Bush, and a smattering of ex-DOT undersecretaries filled out the roster of 80 transportation experts.
Describing government spending on transportation as woefully underfunded, the report estimated that between $134 billion and $267 billion more is needed each year from now to 2035 to make U.S. roads, rail, and air transportation competitive with other countries.
The report lamented the “pork and political opportunism” in the current transportation reauthorization act, SAFETEA-LU, and advocated the setting up of core national priorities for transportation such as high-speed rail networks.
“High-speed rail has the potential to provide a fast, efficient and integrated alternative to driving and flying,” the report said. The best approach for genuine high-speed rail would be rights of way separate from existing freight lines – a policy strongly advocated by PPI (see here and here).
A major increase in the federal gas tax, which has remained unchanged at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993, would help pay the bill for getting America’s transportation systems back to state-of-the-art standards.
Derailing High-Speed Rail
The group’s “call for action” comes at a time when Republican leaders have steered the GOP in a completely different direction. Extending the Bush tax cut has become their top national priority. The White House’s plan last month for $50 billion in infrastructure spending on highways and rail was met with open contempt by House Republican Leader John Boehner.
Several state races are shaping up as tests of whether President Obama’s higher-speed rail initiative can survive Republican hostility. In Wisconsin and Ohio, Republican candidates for governor have called federal stimulus money awarded for train improvements a major waste of taxpayer funds.
Scott Walker, the Republican candidate for governor in Wisconsin, has launched a website called notrain.com. He’s ahead in the polls, as is John Kasich, the former House Republican who vows to kill a $400 million federal stimulus project to link Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by rail if elected the next governor of Ohio.
The anti-rail contagion has spread to New Jersey, where Republican Gov. Chris Christie is threatening to scuttle a train tunnel to Manhattan – and forfeit $6 billion in pledged funds from the federal government and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey – citing concerns of large cost overruns.
Christie yesterday postponed his announcement of whether he will back out of the agreement to build the tunnel – which would create 6,000 long-term construction jobs – in part so that he could campaign for other Republicans in the Midwest.
In California and Florida, where full-scale high-speed train networks have been awarded federal stimulus grants, GOP candidates are suggesting that they would delay or disrupt the projects.
Meg Whitman, running as the Republican candidate in California, says the state cannot afford “at this time” the costs associated with new high-speed rail. Rick Scott, Republican candidate for governor in Florida, has jumped on the same bandwagon, questioning whether the state can afford a rail line between Orlando and Tampa that has been awarded $1.25 billion in federal stimulus money.
Ironically, the current governors of California and Florida, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist, gained office as Republicans and have been big rail supporters. “To say ‘now is not the time’ shows a very narrow vision,” Schwarzenegger’s communications chief told the New York Times in response to Whitman’s tepid support for California’s rail investment.
The Eisenhower Model
“We’re going to have bridges collapse. We’re going to have earthquakes. We need somebody to grab the issue and run with it,” Mineta told reporters on Monday.
His earnest tone, delivered at the Rayburn House Office Building, was at odds with the anti-tax, anti-government vitriol coming from those of the same political stripe occupying nearby offices.
Advocates of infrastructure spending must offer specific data and concrete examples of the damage that continued underfunding of transportation projects could inflict on America’s standard of living and economic security. A starting point would be America’s dangerous overdependence on gasoline coming from unstable or hostile foreign countries. Add to this the lost productivity for U.S. drivers stuck in traffic jams, which the Mineta-Skinner report estimated at $87 billion in 2007, or $750 for every driver.
And consider that our population is expected to grow by 90 million in the next 40 years. These citizens will need to move, and high-speed rail is cheaper to build and causes much less environmental damage than new highways and airports.
A role model for such educational outreach is Dwight Eisenhower. The Republican president launched the Interstate Highway System by articulating a vision of top-quality roads benefiting all citizens and secured bipartisan support in Congress. It was part of his crusade to win the Cold War.
There’s a new battle out there – in the form of competition from emerging economic powerhouses like China, which plans to spend over $1 trillion in the next 10 years on a comprehensive 220-mph train system. While China builds its future, many of our politicians welcome gridlock as a way to wrest short-term partisan gains.
Photo credit: aussiegal
Tags: 220-mph train system, air transportation, America’s standard of living, anti-government, anti-rail, anti-tax, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bush tax cut, California, call for action, Charlie Crist, China, Chris Christie, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Cold War, Columbus, DOT Secretary, earthquakes, economic security, Eisenhower Model, environmental damage, fast trains, federal gas tax, federal stimulus, Florida, freight lines, gasoline, George H.W. Bush, GOP, government spending, high-speed rail, high-speed rail networks, highways, House Republican, HSR, Infrastructure, infrastructure spending, Interstate Highway System, John Boehner, John Kasich, Mary E. Peters, Meg Whitman, Midwest, Mineta-Skinner, national priority, New Jersey, New York, New York Times, Norman Mineta, notrain.com, Ohio, Orlando, political opportunism, Port Authority, PPI, Progressive Fix, rail, Rayburn House Office Building, Republican leaders, Rick Scott, SAFETEA-LU, Samuel Skinner, Scott Walker, Secretary of Transportation, short-term, state races, Tampa, traffic jams, train tunnel to Manhattan, Transportation, U.S. drivers, U.S. roads, underfunded, University of Virginia, Washington’s transportation policy, White House, Wisconsin
Posted in
Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix |
1 Comment »
Monday, October 4th, 2010
Lee Drutman
Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Lee Drutman
America is adrift and needs leadership to modernize and build a foundation for 21st century competitiveness. And while it’s a long hard to travel, there are at least a few signs of optimism.
Such were the key takeaway points from Friday morning’s panel on the question of “Retooling the American Economy,” which was part of the Progressive Policy Institute’s Second Annual North American Strategic Leadership Infrastructure Leadership Forum in Washington, DC.
The panelists were : Tom Friedman, New York Times Columnist, Pulitzer-Prize Winning Author; Jason Furman, Deputy Director, National Economic Council, White House; Roderick Bennett, Advisor to the General President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America; and John Woolard, CEO, Brightsource Energy. David Wessel, economics editor of the Wall Street Journal moderated.
In general, the panelists agreed that we’re in a difficult spot. We’re falling behind China on infrastructure, on energy, on basic research and development – just about every measure of investing in a 21st century economy. As Friedman put it, “We can only go so long with a philosophy of dumb as we want to be.”
Part of that dumb-as-we-want-to-be philosophy is an unwillingness on the part of many to admit that government has a key role to play in creating an environment where innovation can thrive, both by making big investments and putting the right incentives in place. The solution to this, of course, is leadership.
“We have an epic lack of faith in government with a capital G, but we have an unchanging love for government at the local level when it means bridge projects and energy projects and broadband projects,” said Furman. “And that’s something you see at the bipartisan level. Some of this means we have a messaging problem, and some of that is bottom-up, pointing out what it all tangibly means.”
“But how you get the snake through the python is a big challenge,” Furman added. “You have to pass the thing through Congress, and the debate will be framed in big government terms.”
Friedman, who was openly critical of the administration’s salesmanship efforts, argued that what was needed was big-picture leadership.
“We need to make it aspirational,” said Friedman. “That’s what the moon shot was all about. People want nation-building at home. You fly from Shanghai to JFK, and you go from the Jetsons to the Flinstones. People sense that. And the President has never made that the lodestar. He’s never leveraged all that energy.”
Woolard, who heads a large solar energy company, offered a dose of optimism. “We have a lot more projects here in the U.S. than abroad,” he said. “There are good projects, and there’s a lot moving forward.”
“But,” he added, “The thing that scares me most is the longer-term issue. Not enough students are going into engineering. We need to encourage people to go into those disciplines.”
Woolard also described the challenge at hand: In order to stabilize carbon emissions at 450 parts per million by 2050 (a commonly-agreed on target to stem global warming), “we’ve gotta build between 12,000 and 20,000 gigawatts of carbon-free power. That’s a power plant per day. We’ve built gigawatts a week before, but we don’t have the rules yet to get to this objective. We need policy.”
The consensus was that there would need to be a price on carbon. “Capital works itself out with the right rules,” Woolard said. But given the politics of energy, would the political will ever exist?
Here Friedman was an optimist: “We’re absolutely going to have a gas tax and a carbon tax,” he told the audience. “Because we’re going to run out of money, and we will need revenue and when we run into that wall, people will look around and say, what’s the best source? The sad thing is there are 535 members of Congress, and not one will propose this when it is so manifestly in the strategic and economic interest of the country.”
Bennett, whose union represents construction workers, also registered support for a gasoline tax, which he called “the elephant in the room.”
Friedman also offered a “killer app” for economic competitiveness: “An ecosystem of a national renewable standard, a price on carbon, a gasoline tax, higher building efficiency standards,” he said. “Put that ecoystem in place and you get 10,000 green garages trying 10,000 different things. Two of those will be the next green Google and Microsoft. The killer app is the enabling system.”
Tags: administration’s salesmanship, American Economy, bipartisan, bridge projects, Brightsource Energy, broadband projects, building efficiency standards, carbon emissions, carbon tax, carbon-free power, China, Clean energy and technology, Climate change, Competitiveness, construction workers, David Wessel, economic interest, economics, ecosystem, energy, energy projects, engineering, Environment, Flinstones, gas tax, gasoline tax, gigawatts, global warming, Green jobs, Infrastructure, Innovation, Jason Furman, Jetsons, JFK, Jobs, John Woolard, killer app, Laborers’ International Union of North America, leadership, longer-term issue, modernize, nation-building, National Economic Council, New York Times, policy, political will, politics of energy, power plant, PPI, price on carbon, Progressive Policy Institute, research and development, Retooling the American Economy, Roderick Bennett, Second Annual North American Strategic Leadership Infrastructure Leadership Forum, Shanghai, tom friedman, Transportation, Wall Street Journal
Posted in
Daily Fix, Issues |
3 Comments »
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010
Steven Chlapecka
Steven K. Chlapecka is the director of public affairs for the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Steven Chlapecka
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 28, 2010
PRESS CONTACT:
Steven Chlapecka—schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931
Deputy Director Jason Furman Joins Roundtable Discussion on Jobs, Innovation and Competitiveness
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Jason Furman, deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, will join the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) for a roundtable discussion at the Washington Hilton at 9 a.m. on Friday, Oct. 1 as part of the 2nd Annual North American Strategic Infrastructure Forum. The discussion will focus on jobs, innovation and retooling the American economy for growth and global competition.
The roundtable will feature panelists New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman, LIUNA General President Terence M. O’Sullivan and BrightSource Energy CEO John Woolard. It will be moderated by Wall Street Journal Economics Editor David Wessel.
“Furman’s participation underlines the forum as the premier showcase of strategic infrastructure investments needed to speed economic recovery and raise America’s game in global competition,” said Will Marshall, president of PPI. “We hope to challenge the nation’s political leaders to embrace a bolder strategy for retooling the American economy through crucial infrastructure projects like high-speed rail, clean cars and next-generation nuclear energy.”
Throughout the three-day conference, the Progressive Policy Institute and CG/LA Infrastructure will bring together leading thinkers from the public and private sectors in order to move North America’s most important projects forward, creating as many as six million new direct jobs.
Other featured speakers include: U.S. Senator Mark Warner, (D-Va.); U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro, (D-Conn.); Leo Hindery Jr., Managing Partner, InterMedia Partners VII; Joe Boardman, President and CEO, Amtrak; U.S. Representative Dan Lipinski, (D-Ill.); Mark Reagan, Chairman, Global Construction Practice, Marsh Inc.; Chris Bertram, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer, Department of Transportation; Ev Ehrlich, President, ESC Company; and more.
WHERE: Washington Hilton, Columbia Hall 5 & 7, 1919 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC
WHEN: 9 – 10:30 a.m., Friday, Oct. 1
Download the entire day’s schedule.
MEDIA COVERAGE: The event is open to the press. Media wishing to attend should contact Steven Chlapecka at 202.525.3931 or schlapecka@ppionline.org.
To RSVP for this event, click here.
# # #
Tags: 2nd Annual North American Strategic Infrastructure Forum, Amtrak; Dan Lipinski, BrightSource Energy CEO, Chris Bertram, clean cars, David Wessel, Department of Transportation; Ev Ehrlich, Global Construction Practice, HSR, Infrastructure, Jason Furman, Joe Boardman, John Woolard, Leo Hindery Jr., LIUNA, Mark Reagan, Mark Warner, Marsh Inc, National Economic Council, New York Times, Nuclear Energy, Officer, PPI, Progressive Policy Institute, Rosa DeLauro, Terence M. O'Sullivan, tom friedman, Transportation, Wall Street Journal Economics, Washington Hilton, Will Marshall
Posted in
Press Releases |
No Comments »
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010
Lee Drutman
Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Lee Drutman
This week, Progressive Fix will be focused on infrastructure.
That’s because the Progressive Policy Institute is co-hosting a major infrastructure forum this Wednesday through Friday here in Washington, D.C.
The timing of the forum couldn’t be better. It comes less than a month after President Obama laid out a plan for $50 billion in U.S. infrastructure investment.
As my colleague Scott Thomasson wrote at the time:
The President is sending a strong message this week that his administration’s thinking has moved beyond another round of scattershot stimulus toward a real plan for sustainable growth. Today’s speech suggests that the mantra for spending has changed from an obsession with injecting federal spending to thinking rationally about actually investing it. That’s welcome news, and it’s not a moment too soon.
This week we’ll be gathering leading experts from the private and public sector to talk about how to build on the President’s initiative and about how investing in infrastructure can create jobs and strengthen the American economy for the 21st century.
The forum will feature leading thinkers on infrastructure like Tom Friedman, Leo Hindery Jr., Ev Ehlrich, and PPI Fellow Mark Reutter, as well as political leaders on infrastructure like Congressman Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT), who has introduced legislation to create an infrastructure bank, and Sen. John Warner (D-VA)
We’ll be sponsoring panels on “High Speed Rail”, “Retooling the American Economy”, and “Financing Future Growth.”
The forum will also highlight the “top 100” strategic infrastructure projects and new PPI proposals for using public dollars to leverage private investment to create jobs and spur economic growth.
You can find a full program for the forum here. All events are at the Washington Hilton and open to the interested public.
To register for “Keeping America on Track: The Future of High-Speed Rail”, click here. For the North America Strategic Infrastructure Leadership Forum, click here.
We will also be unveiling two new policy memos this week, one on high-speed rail and a second on an infrastructure bank.
Finally, check back with the Progressive Fix over the course of the week for full coverage of the panels. I’ll be reporting on all the great ideas that are sure to come out of this incredible collection of leading lights.
So stay tuned as we lay out a vision for a road forward on infrastructure.
Photo credit: Jason
Tags: Ev Ehlrich, Financing Future Growth, high-speed rail, Infrastructure, infrastructure bank, John Warner, Leo Hindery Jr., Mark Reutter, policy memos, PPI, President Obama, Progressive Fix, Progressive Policy Institute, Retooling the American Economy, Rosa L. DeLauro, Scott Thomasson, strategic infrastructure projects, sustainable growth, tom friedman, Transportation
Posted in
Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix, Issues |
No Comments »
Friday, September 24th, 2010
Steven Chlapecka
Steven K. Chlapecka is the director of public affairs for the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Steven Chlapecka
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 24, 2010
PRESS CONTACT:
Steven Chlapecka—schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931
PPI and CG/LA Infrastructure Will Bring Together Leading Thinkers
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Just weeks after President Obama announced a major infrastructure initiative, the Progressive Policy Institute and CG/LA Infrastructure will bring together leading thinkers from the public and private sectors at the 2nd Annual North American Strategic Infrastructure Leadership Forum in Washington, DC, September 29–October 1.
The forum will highlight the “top 100” strategic infrastructure projects and new PPI proposals for using public dollars to leverage private investment to create jobs and spur economic growth.
“This forum is emerging as the premier showcase for the kinds of strategic infrastructure investments we need to speed economic recovery and raise America’s game in global competition,” said Will Marshall, president of PPI. “Our goal is to challenge the nation’s political leaders to embrace a bolder strategy for retooling the American economy, lest we fall farther behind in the race for high-speed rail, clean cars, next-generation nuclear energy and other growing markets.”
Featured speakers include: Tom Friedman, New York Times Columnist; Senator Mark Warner, (D-Va.); U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro, (D-Conn.); Joe Boardman, President and CEO, Amtrak; Leo Hindery Jr., Managing Partner, InterMedia Partners VII; U.S. Representative Dan Lipinski, (D-Ill.); Mark Reagan, Chairman, Global Construction Practice, Marsh Inc.; John Woolard, CEO, Brightsource Energy; David Wessel, Economic Editor, Wall Street Journal; Chris Bertram, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer, Department of Transportation; Terence M. O’Sullivan, President, LIUNA; Ev Ehrlich, President, ESC Company; and more.
The three-day conference will also bring together more than 500 leading executives to showcase major proposed infrastructure projects across the continent.
MEDIA COVERAGE: The event is open to the press. Media wishing to attend should contact Steven Chlapecka at 202.525.3931 or schlapecka@ppionline.org.
For further questions, please contact Steven Chlapecka at schlapecka@ppionline.org, 202.525.3931 (office), 202.556.1752 (cell).
# # #
Tags: 2nd Annual North American Strategic Infrastructure Leadership Forum, CG/LA Infrastructure, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, David Wessel, Ev Ehrlich, Infrastructure, Progressive Policy Institute, Senator Mark Warner, strategic infrastructure investments, tom friedman, Transportation
Posted in
Press Releases |
No Comments »
Wednesday, September 15th, 2010
Scott Thomasson
Scott Thomasson is the economic and domestic policy director for the Progressive Policy Institute.
Follow @st_ppi
by Scott Thomasson
The good news out of Congress yesterday is that the Senate actually broke through the infamous 60-vote barrier to move forward on the small-business relief bill. The bill itself is a good thing, and no doubt good news for small businesses struggling to thrive in this sideways economy. For me, the even bigger story is the leadership shown by Senator Voinovich (R-OH) in breaking the logjam that the Republican leadership had planned for this bill, and for anything else President Obama hoped to pass before the elections.
This vote was not just a one-shot deal for Voinovich—it can be a potential game-changer for the president’s economic agenda this fall, especially if the administration is serious about acting on its proposal for long overdue investments in our infrastructure.
When he announced his vote last week, Voinovich set an important precedent by acknowledging that the country’s economic needs should be more important this year than short-term campaign strategies. As he put it, “We don’t have time for messaging. . . . This country is really hurting.”
That’s a huge step in the right direction, because it means there is a faint glimmer for hope that Washington will not remain paralyzed during this extremely critical moment for our economy. As Bernard Schwartz and David Rothkopf wrote in the Financial Times last week, the next few months will be a pivotal time for us as a nation, and the response from Washington (or lack thereof) may have a profound and long-lasting impact on our economy and the world:
The US faces not one but two economic crises. One is that the current slump could easily take a turn for the worse. The second is even more unsettling: a long-term competitiveness crisis that, if unaddressed, raises questions about the country’s ability to create jobs, attract investment and maintain its international leadership.
For both these reasons, it is critical that America’s political classes set aside partisanship and focus on taking concrete action now – even if it comes when such political courage (which is to say responsible leadership) is most difficult, in the last months of an election cycle.
All of the president’s ideas are solid ones with broad potential benefits. In our view, among these, an infrastructure bank is particularly promising and has been misunderstood in many of the initial responses. It is so central to what the US requires at present that voters and leaders in both parties need to examine it carefully and find a way to bring it to fruition.
Senator Voinovich has not only shown he can answer this call to set aside partisanship, he has also made a similar case for investing in infrastructure now, rightly arguing that the focus on short-term stimulus has “miss[ed] the forest for the trees.” He’s riding a different horse than the president, advocating for a strong highway bill funded by an increase in the gas tax, rather than the president’s proposal for an infrastructure bank. However, this is a difference on which the two men should work together to bridge the gap between them. Given the opportunity to do something meaningful for the economy, there should be plenty of room for Obama and Voinovich to find a common ground.
Senator Voinovich has taken a brave first step toward bipartisanship for the sake of recovery. Now it is President Obama’s turn. The president has a lot of bad choices he can make in the coming weeks, and there are other moderate approaches to breaking the impasse on infrastructure spending after the elections. But chances for leadership like this are fleeting, and he should take advantage of the opportunity Senator Voinovich has given him to make infrastructure investment more than just campaign rhetoric.
Photo credit: Respres
Tags: Barack Obama, Bernard Schwartz, David Rothkopf, George Voinovich, Infrastructure, infrastructure spending, National Infrastructure Bank, small-business tax relief, Transportation
Posted in
A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix, Issues |
1 Comment »
Tuesday, September 7th, 2010
Scott Thomasson
Scott Thomasson is the economic and domestic policy director for the Progressive Policy Institute.
Follow @st_ppi
by Scott Thomasson
In his speech in Milwaukee yesterday, President Obama laid out a proposal for smart, responsible investment in economic growth by addressing the urgent need to improve our nation’s infrastructure. Compared to other economic measures that have been put on the table, economists tell us that infrastructure financing will generate the most bang for our buck, and businesses tell us it will create jobs where we need them now and at the same time produce long-lasting benefits for our economy. Under normal circumstances, a national infrastructure bank is a great idea. In the current economic environment, it’s a necessity.
The President is sending a strong message this week that his administration’s thinking has moved beyond another round of scattershot stimulus toward a real plan for sustainable growth. Today’s speech suggests that the mantra for spending has changed from an obsession with injecting federal spending to thinking rationally about actually investing it. That’s welcome news, and it’s not a moment too soon.
PPI has been hard at work with members of Congress, industry experts, and economists to identify swift and effective steps for fixing our infrastructure problems and putting the country on a better path to economic growth. We have supported legislation to create a national infrastructure bank, introduced by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who has taken the lead and been the real champion on this issue in Congress. She will discuss the bill at PPI’s infrastructure policy event on October 1, in conjunction with the annual CG/LA Infrastructure North American Leadership Forum in Washington, DC.
Rep. DeLauro and other elected officials will join Tom Friedman, Leo Hindery, economist Ev Ehrlich, and top business and labor leaders to discuss the best ways to move forward on infrastructure now. The conference will also examine CG/LA’s list of the top 100 infrastructure projects that represent the most important and urgent priorities for investment.
At a time when deficits are high and every dollar counts, leveraged infrastructure financing is one of the smartest things the federal government can do for the economy. When compared to other forms of spending and tax cuts, including the costs for the hotly-debated upper end of the Bush tax cuts, infrastructure spending has a stronger impact on the economy. In fact, it blows most other options out of the water. Even conservatives who argue against further spending right now would agree that if we’re going to spend, this is a much better use of taxpayer dollars than other less productive programs that simply throw money at short-term problems.
The idea behind the infrastructure bank and the new generation of transportation funding programs is to use public financing as seed money to attract private investment, which adds valuable leverage to every taxpayer dollar. This potent combination of funding will create jobs that can be counted on for years in the hard-hit construction sector and will result in long-term structural benefits for every sector of our economy, including increased productivity and more efficient transportation for our goods and services.
Make no mistake: the proposals the president spoke about today are not the old-school pork projects that many of us think of when we hear anyone in Washington talk about infrastructure. Creating an infrastructure bank is not about allocating more money for Congress to build “bridges to nowhere.” Instead, it would help bridge the gap that exists between private-sector capital and the financing needs for modernizing the physical backbone of our economy. By coordinating and prioritizing public needs and relying in part on the market for investment decisions, we can move private capital off the sidelines and into projects that are strategically important for entire regions and for the nation as a whole, not just for one congressman with the right committee assignment.
President Obama and Rep. DeLauro have their work cut out for them in pushing the proposal for an infrastructure bank and smarter transportation investment through Congress, especially in such a charged political atmosphere. But the President has picked the right fight at least: the fact is that we badly need to upgrade our infrastructure, and it’s an investment that will create steady job growth and generates long-term value for our country. It will not be an easy fight, but it’s one worth fighting, and President Obama should be commended for taking it up.
Photo credit: Feuilu’s Photostream
Tags: Infrastructure, infrastructure bank, Obama economic plan, Rosa DeLauro, stimulus, Transportation
Posted in
A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix, Issues |
4 Comments »
Monday, September 6th, 2010
Will Marshall
Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Will Marshall
As longtime proponents of a national infrastructure bank, PPI is delighted by President Obama’s new initiative. His proposal to invest $50 billion in new public investment is potentially an economic game-changer. By choosing projects on economic rather than political grounds, an infrastructure bank could leverage hundreds of billions of private investment in new roads, high-speed rail, new generation air traffic control and other long overdue upgrades of our public infrastructure.
The president’s proposal also shifts the policy debate away from makeshift stimulus responses to more structural fixes for our ailing economy. By embarking on a major program of internal national building, we can generate new jobs now, speed innovation and enhance our ability to win in global competition.
There are reports that some progressive centrists may be reluctant to support this proposal at a time of escalating deficits and debt. We take a back seat to no one when it comes to fiscal discipline. But the president’s proposal is not just another short-term stimulus; it’s a long-term investment in expanding the nation’s productive base. With our economy mired in sluggish growth and high unemployment, America needs a vision for economic regeneration, not penny-wise, pound-foolish politics.
We therefore urge pragmatic progressives to give enthusiastic backing to the president’s plan to get America moving again. And we are particularly glad to see its strong emphasis on high-speed rail, the subject of a series of recent PPI reports and analyses.
PRESS CONTACT:
Steven Chlapecka—schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931
Tags: air traffic control, Economy, fiscal discipline, high-speed rail, Infrastructure, National Infrastructure Bank, President Obama, Transportation
Posted in
Daily Fix, Press, Press Releases |
1 Comment »
