Heritage: Not a Fan of the Infrastructure Bank

When doing research for my post on the infrastructure bank, I was surprised to find that the Heritage Foundation was against said bank. Conservatives generally approve of public-private partnerships. For example, former Senator Chuck Hagel co-wrote a bill trying to establish an infrastructure bank. Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has been a vocal supporter of PPPs. And former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (I never thought that I'd miss her as much as I do) also co-wrote a bill trying to establish an infrastructure bank. So then, why is Heritage against the infrastructure bank?

Well, in their own words:

Problems abound with all of these proposals, particularly regarding transportation policy. First, they reinforce a Washington-centric view. States and regions know their transportation priorities and how to execute projects better than the federal government. Concentrating the decision making in Washington would sidestep the role of state governments and expand an already bloated federal bureaucracy.

I find this argument troubling. The infrastructure bank is not a usurpation of state and local authority by the federal government. The federal government would work in tandem with state and local governments to identify projects that have clear value but lack funding. The infrastructure bank would provide initial funding for a project, and the state or local government would affirm their support for the project by throwing in their funding. The infrastructure bank proposals make clear that the federal government will not fund the entire project - let alone a significant portion of it. Furthermore, the value of the individual projects would be affirmed by the private sector's willingness to throw in their own funding.

However, the most troubling part of the Heritage Foundation's argument against an infrastructure bank is the lack of imagine that they show with regards to the necessity of the federal-style governing structure that America enjoys. There are many infrastructure projects that span across localities and states that provide clear benefit to each locality, each state, and the entire nation. Imagine if the Interstate Highway System were to have been built by the governing framework that Heritage prefers. It's unfathomable to think that each town, city, state, and rural land owner would have been able to successfully coordinate to the degree that the construction of the Interstate Highway System required. And guess what: until the federal government stepped in, we didn't have such a system.