In today’s politically charged landscape, even blogs by industrial paint manufacturers are jumping into the fray. However, we’re not choosing a red or blue side here. We’re choosing to support infrastructure maintenance and improvement.
In this article from PaintSquare, two very different approaches to improving our country’s aging infrastructure are discussed. Both ideas look similar on the surface, but with a little digging the differences are easy to spot.
President Obama has suggested an Infrastructure Bank that his critics have compared to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. The proposed “Bank” backs private investments with public money. The idea was first proposed last year and has drawn bipartisan support. My concern is – which programs and/or projects get the public backing, and which are allowed to fail? I personally don’t like the idea of government picking winners and losers; the track record on that isn’t so great.
Governor Romney has suggested a Public Private Partnership with a catchy “P3” moniker that is being compared to a recent proposal in Ohio by Gov. John Kasich. I’m a fan of this angle, having private investment backing government projects versus the President’s public dollars backing private ventures because of the question raised above – who selects the winners? Also, I’m trying to be consistent (unlike most politicians).
Like most things in politics, both proposals have merit as well as shortcomings. Regardless of the decision that we as a nation make early next month, one of these proposals needs to be championed by the President himself if we are to remain a world leader in industry, innovation and life style.