Feds Step Up Quest for Private Infrastructure Financing

[cali]

The Obama administration is pushing ahead with its campaign to draw more private dollars to narrow the huge U.S. infrastructure-finance gap, announcing on Sept. 9 a flurry of project-funding actions.

<snip>

http://enr.construction.com/policy/washington_observer/2014/0909-infrastructure-finance-gap-moves-into-the-spotlight-.asp

<snip>

Hosted by the Obama Administration as part of the Build America Investment Initiative, the Infrastructure Investment Summit includes over 100 leaders from industry, finance, philanthropy, and local and state governments convening with senior Administration officials to highlight the growth in the U.S. infrastructure market, build partnerships, and develop strategies for increasing investment in sectors like transportation, water, telecommunications, and energy.

<snip>

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-water-participating-in-infrastructure-investment-summit-at-the-us-department-of-the-treasury-2014-09-09

Gee, enough money for war, but not enough for infrastructure- including water- so the administration is pushing privatization.




Gee, enough money for war, but not enough for vital programs. shocker. and yet according to a running poll on DU, 58% of DUers support this new war- and that damned well is what it is and it's expensive. Something always gives and it won't mean higher taxes on the wealthy, it means more cuts that damage the middle class and poor.

The crushing news came less than a year after Diane Robinson and her 24-year-old son moved into an airy two-bedroom apartment in the Bronx. The city, which helps pay her rent, wrote this summer to say she would have to downsize into a one-bedroom apartment or pay $240 more a month in rent.

A public school aide, Ms. Robinson, 48, decided to stay in the apartment, in the Castle Hill neighborhood. But on an annual income of about $25,000, she is struggling, she said, and she does not know how long she can hang on. Moving to a one-bedroom apartment would mean that her son, a college student who works to help with food and utilities, would have to sleep in the living room. “My son works — he’s not entitled to have his own bedroom?” she said. “Next thing they’re going to tell me is that I’m not entitled to a roof over my head.”

Thousands of New York City tenants are facing similar choices because of cuts to the federal Section 8 voucher program and the resulting belt-tightening by the city. The rental vouchers allow low- and moderate-income tenants to live in private buildings and to pay about 30 percent of their income in rent, with the voucher program making up the rest. The cost of the program is about $400 million a year. But federal budget cuts under sequestration last year have left the program $37 million short, the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development said.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/nyregion/budget-cuts-reshape-new-yorks-public-housing.html?_r=0

More draconian cuts will be made that much easier because of this new war.

congrats on supporting that shit.

[Half-Century Man]

1. Here is how to get financial support from private companies for infastucture improvements

TAX THEM TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THEIR FAIR SHARE.
REINSTATE THE TAX CODES OF THE EISENHOWER ADMINISTRATIONS.


Fuck me running.

[FrodosPet]

10. Including all the loopholes?

I can has racehorses and big houses and fancy vacations AND deduct them from taxes?

Meanwhile, the unconnected peons without the long list of deductions and shelters were the ones paying more.

Please feel free to study ALL the aspects of taxes during the 1950s. The code was so full of loopholes that NO ONE paid that magic 91%.

Remember - it was JFK and a Democratic congress who lowered the rates and began the push for supply side economics.

[cali]

2. who will bear the burden of this new war? the poor and middle class

and chiefly the poor- and the disabled and minorities and the elderly.

that's what the supporters of this war are supporting.

[NYC_SKP]

3. "...made that much easier because of this new war."

There is no "new war", this is still the Bush Cheney war.

Hell, we were bombing ISIS three weeks ago.

New war?

New BS talking point!

[cali]

4. oh please. It's going to be very expensive. no one disputes that

and sorry, but bush isn't the one making the decisions now. Yes, he started it, but that doesn't mean the course was set for all time. President Obama didn't have to do the surge in Afghanistan or do this.

your talking points and rah rah war bombs is nonsense, bullshit talking points, whatever.

what I wrote is factual backed by actual evidence. You provide zipshit in that regard.

oh, you forgot to defend privatizing the infrastructure and insisting that it's bush who is responsible for this.

[geek tragedy]

5. And why is there no public funding for this infrastructure?

Oh yeah, Republicans control Congress.

Dirty pool trying to blame people who disagree with you on ISIL for the nation's crumbling infrastructure.

Obama is trying to do what he can about it. Since he doesn't have the power to tax and spend, his options are rather limited.

I prefer private involvement to bridges collapsing, but that's just me.

[cali]

6. sorry. it's simply factual. and your claim that repubs control congress is false. they control the

house. dems control the senate. basic stuff.

disgusting to deny that the cost of war doesn't deeply impact our budget. why am I not surprised that you support privatization? How about water privatization? down with that too?

[geek tragedy]

7. where do spending and tax bills originate?

you're acting as if there was a big pot of money set aside for these projects that Obama is raiding. There was no money for these projects because Republicans refused to spend money on it.

You know that.

Why the heck are you trying to pin blame on Obama and Democrats for the Republicans' refusal to fund infrastructure?

I prefer public funding to private funding for infrastructure. I prefer private funding for infrastructure to not having infrastructure. Which part of that do you find fault with?

[whereisjustice]

8. this is a seriously fucked up reliance on the kindness of corporations and their sociopathic CEOs,

The 3rd way won't be happy until Monsanto has toll booths in front of every school and grocery store.

Here's an idea- how about we tax the SOBs for every job and dollar they send to Asia?

[woo me with science]

9. More predatory Third Way GARBAGE.

We are bought and sold. We are farm animals for profit.

[FrodosPet]

11. Bernie Sanders speaks for you?

So you ARE ok with bombing ISIL then!

[woo me with science]

12. Yes, he speaks for me on the vast majority of issues.

He's very wrong in supporting bombing Syria, like every other politician I'm aware of in MIC-controlled Washington, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But he has been both correct and consistent for a very long time on most other critically important issues for our nation, unlike the Third Way corporate sellouts.

Did you have a point here you wanted to make?

[FrodosPet]

13. Yes. When even Bernie Sanders wants to bomb someone

Perhaps that is the time when military force applies.

Perhaps he is talking to people who REALLY know what is going on?

[woo me with science]

14. More likely

it is a sign of the level of corruption and power the MIC holds in and over Washington DC.

[FrodosPet]

15. So Bernie, for all the good he does and supports, is still just an MIC flunky?

So we need to cross him and Sen Warren of the list of future contenders because they have been corrupted and deceived as well?

Or is it they are corrupted, but the least corrupt of the bunch?

[cali]

17. Peter Welch, (do you know who he is?)

does not support bombing ISIS.

(he's Vermont's sole U.S. rep) and a very informed, smart guy.) Bernie is not infallible.