So I have been reading lately about a policy proposal that certain Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, etc...have been recommending, which is the creation of an infrastructure bank. They say that because of the nation's ailing infrastructure, that an infrastructure bank would be the best way to go about raising the money to spend to fix the infrastructure. They say that an infrastructure bank would not function like conventional stimulus, i.e. the government take on debt or use taxpayer dollars to funnel out to various projects but instead the government creates a special bank that then raises funds from the private sector that are then used to finance infrastructure projects. They say this type of policy has been used very successfully in other countries and that right now, America actually has a rather socialistic way of financing and operating its infrastructure (government), whereas an infrastructure bank would be a form of public-private partnership that is very pro-market and pro-private-sector. Fareed Zakaria has an article talking about it here: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/13/zakaria-u-s-needs-an-infrastructure-bank/ Such a bank would have a special board appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, and would (in theory anyway), be politically independent in its actions, so as to make sure that infrastructure projects were funded for legitimate reasons as opposed to political reasons, one of the flaws of having government fund infrastructure projects. Myself, I agree that America's infrastructure needs some major upgrading, but I am one who is also thinks it would be wrong to try using government to do it, for various reasons ranging from the current low interest rates right now could shoot up in the future and having the government take on all the additional debt needed could be too dangerous, to issues of corruption that could occur (infrastructure projects being done for reasons of politics as opposed to actual necessity), lack of accountability, etc...but if a special bank could be created that uses no, or very little, government money and mostly uses private-sector money that has been raised, I think that could be a really good idea. I have been scouring the Internet for articles on it, some say it's a great idea, others basically say it may sound good, but is really yet another government boondoggle that would waste a bunch of money and become very prone to corruption, and that it also doesn't really use private money, it is just a different way to allow the government to spend money. Some say it would become another Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, however from what I have read, it would be designed specifically not to become one of these, as the bank's owners would be the American people as opposed to shareholders as with Fannie/Freddie. One claim made is that spending on new infrastructure, done properly, would really be investments for the country's future. This is especially the case if the current infrastructure hamstrings economic growth. If new infrastructure would lead to lots of new economic growth down the line, that would be a huge plus. It is one thing if the country has adequate infrastructure, and it is just very old, but functioning and otherwise adequate, but if in addition to having much old infrastructure, economic growth is also being hamstrung by the need for a lot of additional new infrastructure as well and said addition infrastructure is developed, and in a way that is not politically corrupted, we could see economic growth possibly start booming in various areas that it currently is not. Now the American Society of Civil Engineers released a report basically giving a fail to America's infrastructure, however some say the ASCE has an agenda (Google "ASCE infrastructure cult"), here is an article: http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/charles-marohn/15121/asce-infrastructure-cult, which would mean much of the current concern over infrastructure is overblown. I was reading a discussion of the article where one person pointed out that infrastructure that needs repair is different than arguing for wholly new infrastructure however (i.e. the nation's infrastructure could be wholly adequate, just much of it old). Here is an article talking about the pros and cons of developing an American infrastructure bank: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...d-pitfalls-of-a-national-infrastructure-bank/ It seems both sides of the issue have lots of good points, was wondering people's opinions on the issue? Are we in need of lots of new infrastructure, or is that claim over-blown? Would an infrastructure bank be a good idea to repair existing infrastructure/build new infrastructure or just another boondoggle? Zakaria mentions much of European infrastructure also has a lot more private operation of it as opposed to American infrastructure, that would be something to look into too.