As the U.S. Senate considers a stand-alone national Renewable Energy Standard this fall, a new study from the Apollo Alliance finds that comprehensive energy and climate policies, and a focus on infrastructure spending on clean transportation could create 3.7 million jobs in the US, including 600,000 in manufacturing over the next six years if their recommended Transportation Manufacturing Action Plan (TMAP) is passed.  

The Apollo Alliance is a coalition labor, business, environmental, and community leaders – advancing a vision for the next American economy centered on clean energy and good jobs. In a separate report published earlier this month, the organization noted that congressional inaction on the President's already proposed infrastructure plan, and associated bill, has already cost 88,000 jobs this year in Missouri alone!

USWA president Leo Gerard joined the Alliance at a news conference this past week, and said: “This is an opportunity to rebuild the important transportation infrastructure of this country and to put it in a first class system, The additional benefit we can call the triple bottom line. We get to create good family supporting jobs, we get to spend dollars in a way that is going to grow the economy but just as importantly, we take carbon out of the air.”

Missouri is just one of many states that would greatly benefit from the President's recently re-articulated call for a complete "infrastructure overhaul", also announced on Monday, which includes a a $50 billion investment in roads, bridges, railways and electric grids he says are "woefully" inadequate. His comments came after a meeting with Cabinet officials, governors and mayors where officials discussed a new government report on infrastructure that argues a significant improvement effort could help create jobs and boost economic output. Obama proposed a six-year plan that would rebuild and modernize hundreds of thousands of miles of roads, bridges and rail lines as well as overhauling the way the government funds infrastructure projects.   

The report also has some new thinking about public/private partnerships to expand the total amount of directed infrastructure investment. The possible, perhaps probable, paralysis in Congress on additional stimulus will compel mobilizing more private capital to meet the scale required.  Which "green" technologies, which mix of short and long range interests, will be promoted may be strongly influenced by private partners. When analyzing the "extreme positions" of various parties in debates about "clean" or "green" technology subsidies, or human impact on climate change, or for that matter anything threatening the monopolistic structure of the current energy industry, I keep in mind the inevitable consequence of a government industrial policy that picks winners vs losers is a guarantee of political opposition from potential losers who will be put out of business. Privatizing some of the capital inputs into public or quasi-public utilities and infrastructure may help speed the desired overall technological re-allocation of capital – overwhelm the resistance of the old with opportunities for the new. With more room to expand, fewer overall losers letting off steam.

But a price will be paid. In a sense the government will be placing a very strong bet on the markets – so strong that it will leverage the restructuring needed in financial markets toward more long range stability and a 21st century infrastructure. But the vulnerability of the government initiative to capture by the monopolies it is trying to restructure requires some public transparency to minimize. Otherwise it can just be the beginning of a new "bubble," or worse a continuing stalemate AND a financial collapse from some unknown "externality."

The report notes the following in its call for a National Infrastructure Bank, a big step toward a real national industrial policy that can mobilize both public and private resources:

"Not all infrastructure projects are worth the investment. Investing rationally in infrastructure is critically important, as is providing opportunities for the private sector to invest in public infrastructure. There is currently very little direct private investment in our nation’s highway and transit systems due to the current method of funding infrastructure, which lacks effective mechanisms to attract and repay direct private investment in specific infrastructure projects. The establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank would create the conditions for greater private sector co-investment in infrastructure projects. A National Infrastructure Bank would also perform a rigorous analysis that would result in support for projects that yield the greatest returns to society and are most likely to deliver long-run economic benefits that justify the up-front investments."

For all the current complaints heard from some quarters about Chinese "unfair subsidies," there is complementary argument that stronger and smarter subsidies of the Chinese variety are necessary here to secure our own sustainable future through what is clearly a deep, and structural crisis in class and industrial relationships within US society.

Public sponsored or partnered capital projects (like rails, airports, roads, etc) can return in value many times their cost. The report documents the major positive impact of 'smart' investment in transportation, health care, and 'green' industries on the cost of living for working families. Transportation/commuting costs in particular are the number two expense for most families, just below housing, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Thus bonds (debt) sold to fund capital transportation investments are a pretty good bet to pay off in substantially reduced transportation cost per family, and thus should raise wealth and reduce long term debt to asset ratios.   

The establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank would certainly require Congressional Action. The truth is: the republicans will oppose it on principle as "more socialism." They would be right. It is "more socialism." But to the capitalists who may be reading this: consider that this is exactly the dose of socialism, that can save, and even stabilize, the future of capitalism for the next generation. at least. The alternative is continued instability, aggravated inequality rivaling India or Pakistan, and continued relative decline in US economic performance and standard of living.

Unfortunately, until something is done in the short range about 10% plus unemployment, there is not likely to be a lot of long range thinking predominant in Washington DC, or anywhere else. There are three approaches to this possible, in this writer's opinion.

    1. Cut through the red tape and make as many of the infrastructure projects "shovel ready" as possible. Focus on funding these. But it won't be enough to dent short range unemployment sufficiently. For youth, and seniors at least – including those laid off within a few years of social security, millions of whose pensions and retirement savings have been lost – the government must become the employer of last resort through national state and local service programs. Those programs also should also undertake contributions toward infrastructure, at least where the goods are true "public goods", not in competition with private markets. These WPA style  programs do not create deficits; nor are they inflationary. At the same time they substantially improve the bargaining power of workers in many labor markets, especially in times of high unemployment.

    2. Adopt the Republican approach: "the hungry dog hunts harder." End unemployment extensions. Cut the minimum wage. Privatize social security. The "market" will find the appropriate "full employment" minimum wage – with the appropriate armed protection of course. You want to retire -- save on your own, why should we help you? This is the class warfare proposal.

    3.  Attempt to maintain the status quo: pass the unemployment extension, continue to challenge the Republicans on stimulus until some "externality" changes the balance. Play defense on the Republican attacks. 10% or worse unemployment remains. Unfortunately this could be the road to nowhere.

    The first choice seems the best. But adopting the employer of last resort approach to unemployment simply gives us the stability to focus on infrastructure, on a sustainable future. As Naomi Nye says – "its late – but everything comes next." From where we are now, infrastructure is the road to anywhere, and everywhere.