“Infrastructure Bank Back in Play as Idea in Search of Its Time”, June 22, 2021, is the title of an article penned by Bloomberg Government reporter, Lillianna Byington, on various “national Infrastructure bank” (NIB) proposals as a way to pay for infrastructure. The prominent, and opposing conceptions of NIBs, discussed in the article, are the Warner Senate Bill, S.1499, and the Davis House Bill, HR 3339. The two very different views of how to pay for infrastructure will give you a flavor of the degree of infighting currently going on in the Nation’s capital.

The article refers to previous NIB proposals over the years, however, not since HR 6422, introduced in 2020, and the newly introduced, HR 3339, was one modeled on the original national bank by Alexander Hamilton. 

Byington ends her article with reference to HR 3339, and a quote from one of its leading proponents.

“Some proponents, like Alphecca Muttardy, a macroeconomist with the Coalition for a National Infrastructure Bank, want to see a massive $5 trillion bank that would lend only to infrastructure projects and would be large enough to cover the entire infrastructure financing gap in the federal budget. The coalition supports a House bill (H.R. 3339) that would create a national infrastructure bank, which was introduced by Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.).”

‘“You have to have it big enough to cover everything,” she said. “By having it big enough to cover everything, then all of these hinterland areas would be able to get their fair share of the financing. Right now, the pie is too small.”’