HTTP/2 200 date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:00:05 GMT content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 set-cookie: __cfduid=da7fd64a33334ad8cf4b6c9b2a63482991544644805; expires=Thu, 12-Dec-19 20:00:05 GMT; path=/;; HttpOnly; Secure cf-cache-status: HIT cache-control: public,max-age=15 access-control-allow-origin: * cf-ray: 4882c6705dc03fa1-YUL etag: W/"2a3cf-moWIb0KwPuyoUbOwVQ1yb3T8ijI" expect-ct: max-age=604800, report-uri="" link: ; rel=preload; as=script; link: ?path=%2Fonweb%2Fsaving-infrastructure-and-pensions-at-once-is-too-ambitious>; rel=preload; as=fetch; vary: Accept-Encoding x-powered-by: Express server: cloudflare Saving Infrastructure and Pensions at Once? That’s Ambitious


(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Every politician in Washington loves infrastructure, in theory. Nancy Pelosi said in October that one of her goals was to “build the infrastructure of America from sea to shining sea.” President Donald Trump has promised to “build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways and waterways all across our land.” Yet time and again, details end up derailing any efforts to fix what’s becoming an unavoidable problem.

So give credit to U.S. Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky, the Democrat who is set to lead the House Budget Committee, for stepping up with a more concrete proposal[1] to address the lack of public works financing. Under his plan, the federal government would issue up to $300 billion of 40-year bonds to provide capital for a U.S. infrastructure bank, which would then extend loans to fund construction and maintenance projects. The debt would be called “Rebuild America Bonds” — seemingly a nod to the Build America Bonds program that was part of Barack Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.


On the surface, it’s just another proposal for an American infrastructure bank. It could follow a similar model[2] as the World Bank’s International

Read more from our friends at Gold & Silver