One of the best proposals in the current legislative negotiations was Chris Coons' Industrial Finance Corporation - a $500 billion national development bank that could fund decarbonization and reshoring of supply chains. See @yayitsrob here: theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
The proposal would have put the US about even with KfW - the German development bank that @Thomas_Marois has written extensively about.
Though it still would have been only a fraction of China's $2.4 trillion development bank.
And it's not just $500 billion in direct lending and investing capacity: the Coons proposal would have crowded in lots of private investment that would otherwise go into socially wasteful activities. coons.senate.gov/news/press-rel…
That's trillions of bucks that could have helped execute the administration's ambitious supply chain plans...
Unfortunately, it does not seem like the Industrial Finance Corporation proposal made it into the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill working its way through Congress. (See absence from the House Financial Services Committee draft text.) docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/BA…
Assuming that omission lasts, other legislative vehicles like the National Defense Authorization Act or the bipartisan US Innovation and Competition Act should be contemplated. democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press…
Here's the link to Thomas' book, about which more forthcoming.
Another apparent reconciliation casualty: White House asked for $50 billion for supply chain resilience, but House Energy and Commerce only appropriates one fifth that. whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
And instead of a national green bank that could leverage $27.5 billion in appropriations into $275 billion in lending capacity, we're getting a national green grantmaker that will share $27.5 billion with state green banks. So some indirect but no direct leverage, as I read it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Highly recommend @stephenwertheim's newish book, "Tomorrow, the World."
A close look at how FDR outsourced a lot of postwar planning to private business and think tank leaders, who used racist arguments and discourse policing to remake internationalism. hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?is…
It helps solve the puzzle of how we glided from a hemispheric and solidaristic orientation of the Good Neighbor policy in the early FDR years to eventually 800 bases globally. nytimes.com/2009/07/14/opi…
Adds to our understanding of the complexity of the Roosevelt administration. The same admin had folks that engaged in extensive economic planning, and folks that sought to make economic planning more difficult after the war. cambridge.org/core/books/gen…
The US Innovation and Competition Act, which passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis earlier this month, included the Build America, Buy America Act, which significantly tightens Buy American rules. congress.gov/bill/117th-con…
The congressional findings section makes clear the multifaceted reasons why the spending of tax dollars for procurement purposes is unlike spending by private market actors.
The bipartisan agreed definition of "infrastructure" goes beyond the "roads and bridges" definition some in the GOP have insisted on, and included water and broadband.
Welcome to 21st century foreign investment protection policy. The left doesn't like tools like ISDS, but the beneficiaries of investment protection efforts will increasingly be green industries, which the left likes and wishes to be politically stronger. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
To be clear, ISDS is not mentioned here. But we know from the last decade of ISDS cases in Europe that a lot of disputes are related to governments making clean energy schemes less generous to producers.
To be even more clear, I count myself as implicated in this particular uncomfortable tension.