Press Releases and Newsletters
Drawing Battle Lines (WUNC) (Redistricting Story)
Drawing Battle Lines (WUNC) (Redistricting Story)
Eric Hodge: In January, lawmakers will start work on redistricting – the process of dividing the state into 120 House districts, 50 senate districts, and 13 congressional districts. It happens every ten years, after the U.S. census. It’s very complex, and very political, and next month’s elections will decide how it turns out. Laura Leslie reports.
Laura Leslie: If you ask the average person what’s important in next month’s election, chances are good you’ll hear “jobs” or “the deficit” or “taxes” or “education.” Redistricting probably won’t come up. It’s not really on people’s minds. But how those lines are drawn – and who gets to draw them – will affect the state’s political landscape for the next decade.
For most of North Carolina’s history, redistricting wasn’t much of an issue at all. Our state constitution requires legislative districts to stay within county lines. There wasn’t much lawmakers could do about that. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1960s that districts – congressional and legislative – had to be pretty close to the same size in terms of population. It’s called the “One person, one vote” rule, and lawmakers had to make exceptions to the county rule to comply.
Then there was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That required lawmakers to avoid breaking up minority communities into different districts to dilute their voting power. And it required 40 North Carolina counties where there was a history of discrimination at the polls to get clearance from the Department of Justice whenever they change their districts or election laws.
Those two federal mandates turned North Carolina’s redistricting process into the Wild West. The county rule went out the window as lawmakers sculpted House, Senate, and Congressional districts to suit their political needs.
Thomas Farr: The driving force behind drawing districts beginning in the 1980s was incumbency protection.
Attorney Thomas Farr is an expert on redistricting. He was lead counsel on the state’s two most important redistricting lawsuits – Shaw v. Hunt in the 1990s, a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court several times, and the Stephenson case, challenging the legislative plan of 2001.
Farr: Since the Democrats were in the majority, it was mainly to protect incumbent democrats, to keep control of the General Assembly in the hands of the Democratic party. But quite honestly, there were a lot of Republicans that liked what was going on, too, because they ended up getting safe seats. They didn’t have to campaign. They could keep their jobs without having to face the voters, basically.
Farr says “gerrymandering” – the act of drawing a district to make it easy to win – has led to a lot of corruption in North Carolina politics, because it doesn’t give voters the power to hold their lawmakers accountable.
Farr: The main point is, the voters of North Carolina own the offices. The officeholders work for the voters. And the voters ought to be the ones picking these people. The politicians shouldn’t be picking the voters they want to have to ensure that they’re gonna have a job for life.
Congressman Brad Miller was one of the lead architects of the 2001 plan that Farr took to court. Miller was in the State Senate then, the chairman of the redistricting committee. He doesn’t deny partisanship plays a huge role in the process. Actually, he says, it’s in lawmakers’ best interests to create safe districts not just for own party, but for the other party as well.
Brad Miller: Because that means that the districts you’re gonna lose in some anyway, you might as well lose by a lot. That makes all the districts around it better for your party. And that’s the rule of thumb for either party that’s going to be trying to draw them – I looked at both parties’ plans a decade ago, and both parties pretty much proceeded on that basis.
The next year, Miller won his seat in Congress in the new district he helped to draw. Meantime, the 2001 plan was thrown out by the courts, and had to be redrawn several times to make it more competitive. But even the final version has a lot of safe seats.
In the last midterm election in 2006, 22 out of 50 state senators had no challenger from the other party. 63 out of 120 House seats were safe, too. Most of these districts so heavily favor one party that the other party didn’t bother to run anyone. That benefits the parties – they can save their money for battles they can win. But half the voters in this state had no choice for at least one of their legislators.
This year, it’s different. The Republicans are running candidates in all 50 senate districts. Most House districts are contested too. The battle for control of the legislature is shaping up to be a real brawl. And Bob Phillips with Common Cause says redistricting has a lot to do with it.
Bob Phillips: That is what this is all about. That’s why both parties are spending more money and there’s a great energy to try to control the legislature. Because it will affect how the lines are drawn and how those elections are played out for the next decade.
Whatever party wins control, Phillip says next year’s session is going to be a long one. In 2001, last time they started this process, the legislature stayed in Raleigh for 11 months. Phillips says that’s because redistricting affected all the other work they were doing and all the deals they made.
Phillips: It becomes the issue … I mean, it probably makes cobbling a budget together look like a piece of cake. Because all the stakes are so high on who’s going to able to draw up those plans and what the districts are gonna look like. And it becomes a part of the negotiation – you know, things are held up because of the redistricting. And it just creates and contributes to why it takes so long.
That’s the main reason Phillips wants to see redistricting taken out of the legislature altogether. He says it should be handed over to an independent nonpartisan commission who would put the voters’ interests above the politicians’. But who would appoint people to that commission, and how would they be chosen? Tim Storey is the redistricting expert for the National Conference of State Legislatures. He says thirteen states are trying independent commissions – and so far, they don’t seem to be helping much.
Tim Storey: The commissions are far from perfect. In many cases, they are arguably not independent. So the problem is that redistricting is such a political exercise, it’s very challenging to find a system that can manage the politics of it. I think it’s generally accepted that you cannot take politics out of redistricting.
Even so, attorney Thomas Farr says this year should be a little better than 2001. That’s because of the Stephenson case, the lawsuit he won in 2002. In Stephenson, the state Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers can’t disregard the state constitution just because of federal mandates. This time, as they draw legislative districts, they’ll have to try to avoid breaking up counties while fulfilling the Voting Rights Act and “One person, one vote.” Farr says it’ll be complicated, but it should make the process fairer.
Farr: It is going to make it much, much, much more difficult for either party, no matter who is in charge of the General Assembly, to gerrymander the state and to make the elections irrelevant, basically.
More difficult, but not impossible. When the census numbers come out, some rural districts will go away entirely, and lawmakers will have to decide who among them will lose their seats. Urban counties will likely battle over new seats. And Stephenson doesn’t apply to congressional districts which also have to be redrawn. And then there’s the inevitable lawsuit. Or two, or three. Again, NCSL’s Tim Storey.
Storey: What makes redistricting so contentious is that the stakes are so high. Clearly, the way the maps are drawn has a big impact on ultimately which party has a head start going into every election. You have to sort of be engaged for your side, whether it’s Republican or Democrat – both parties engage in this – to try to gain any advantage you can.
The path to that advantage begins at the ballot box next month. Early voting starts October 14th.
by Laura Leslie
Tuesday, October 05 2010
Kienitz: Administration Won’t Unveil Its (Transportation Reauthorization) Proposal Until February (AASHTO)
Kienitz: Administration Won’t Unveil Its Proposal Until February (AASHTO)
The Obama administration plans to release detailed proposals for a surface transportation reauthorization bill and national infrastructure bank with the Fiscal Year 2012 budget in February 2011, a top U.S. Department of Transportation official told reporters Tuesday after a Senate hearing.
Roy Kienitz, undersecretary for policy at USDOT, said the administration plans to use the six-year surface transportation legislation as the vehicle for authorizing a national infrastructure bank, BNA reported.
The White House has favored a bank starting with a mission to fund transportation projects, and eventually broadening to cover other areas of infrastructure. President Barack Obama has asked Congress to authorize an infrastructure bank or fund during his last two annual budget submissions, but neither the House or Senate has acted to approve the request.
During a Labor Day speech in Milwaukee, the president laid out a plan to jumpstart job creation with a $50 billion investment in highway, bridge, transit, high-speed rail, and aviation infrastructure that would be added to the first year of a six-year surface transportation reauthorization bill. (see Sept. 10 AASHTO Journal story) Obama’s plan includes creating an infrastructure bank to leverage federal dollars and encourage private investment to complete projects that don’t always qualify for existing federal funding programs.
Kienitz made his comments Tuesday after a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on infrastructure funding. The last multiyear surface transportation authorization law known as “SAFETEA-LU” expired Sept. 30, 2009. Congress temporarily extended the law until Dec. 31.
Senators Raise Concern About Bank Concept
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama and ranking minority member of the banking committee, said during Tuesday’s hearing that a national infrastructure bank could end up as a government-sponsored enterprise such as mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That could result in taxpayers footing the bill for failed projects, Shelby warned.
But Kienitz and Alan Krueger, assistant secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department, responded that an infrastructure bank would be different than a government-sponsored enterprise. The bank would be structured more like the existing USDOT’s Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program known as “TIFIA.” This program lends money to state transportation departments for development of projects such as tollways that will produce an income stream to repay the loans.
Written testimony and a webcast of Tuesday’s hearing are available at bit.ly/SBHUAC092110.
USDOT Receives Applications Worth 32 Times the Available Funds (AASHTO)
USDOT Receives Applications Worth 32 Times the Available Funds (AASHTO)
Nearly 1,000 transportation grant applications were submitted from every state and territory for more than $19 billion worth of projects, far exceeding the $600 million in Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery dollars the U.S. Department of Transportation can award for round two of this program, the department announced this morning.
Applications were due in August, but USDOT did not release information about them until today due to a lengthy process of sorting through all the applications.
The overwhelming demand for TIGER II grants continues a trend. This past February, USDOT announced 51 grant awards from nearly 1,500 applications for the first round of TIGER grants. (see Feb. 19 AASHTO Journal story) The TIGER I requests were for almost $60 billion worth of projects, 40 times the $1.5 billion available under that program. The TIGER II requests announced today are for almost 32 times the $600 million appropriated by Congress for this fiscal year.
“The wave of applications for both TIGER II and TIGER I dollars shows the backlog of needed infrastructure improvements and the desire for more-flexible funds,” U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood said in a statement. “This also shows the opportunities still before us to create jobs, to reduce congestion, make wise environmental choices, and help generate lasting economic growth.”
The $600 million in TIGER II grants is for capital investment in surface transportation projects. Up to $35 million can be used for planning grants. USDOT has partnered with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to offer TIGER II planning grants along with HUD’s $40 million in Community Challenge Planning Grants. Almost 700 applications were received for DOT or HUD planning grants. HUD’s funds can be used for localized planning efforts, such as development around a transit stop and zoning or building code updates and improvements.
Combining these funds will provide applicants with one-stop shopping and greater consistency for community development projects that include both transportation and housing or economic development components, according to USDOT. The two Departments, along with assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will participate in the evaluation of the planning grant applications.
TIGER II grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to projects that have a significant impact on the nation, a region, or metropolitan area. High-ranking projects will contribute to the long-term economic competitiveness of the nation, improve the condition of existing transportation facilities and systems, increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, improve the safety of U.S. transportation facilities, and/or enhance the quality of living and working environments of communities through increased transportation choices. USDOT will also give priority to projects that are expected to create and preserve jobs quickly and stimulate rapid increases in economic activity.
Questions regarding this article may be directed to [email protected].
N.C. mayors chart strategy in Asheville (Asheville Citizen Times)
N.C. mayors chart strategy in Asheville (Asheville Citizen Times)
Lt. Gov. Dalton touts education, transportation
ASHEVILLE — Mayors of the 26 largest cities in the state, including Mayor Terry Bellamy, plotted legislative strategy here Thursday and prodded Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton on their top issues.
Dalton addressed members of the N.C. Mayors’ Coalition, whose cities hold more than 3 million of the state’s residents, at a dinner meeting at Fiore’s Ristorante Toscana downtown. It was the first day of the coalition’s fall meeting, which is being held this year in Asheville.
Dalton highlighted his and Gov. Bev Perdue’s initiatives that he said would help the largest cities and the entire state.
They included a distance education system, www.eLearning NC.gov, that he said offers more online courses and degree programs than any other state; early college programs that allow high school students to earn an associate degree; and a move toward establishing inland “ports” to turn parts of the state into transportation hubs.
“You need a great road structure, you need good rail into it and you need a good airport to get in and out,” Dalton said in a separate interview.
A state-appointed Logistics Task Force was going to make recommendations on the inland ports and other issues before funding sources were identified, though one type of funding source the lieutenant governor mentioned was toll roads.
Mayors said transportation was one of their top issues.
“When companies come here they want to be able to move their goods, move people around and we want to make sure we are doing all the things that we can both with the state and locally in a partnership to make that happen,” said Durham Mayor Bill Bell, coalition chairman.
Bell also said he was looking for assurances the state would not withhold funds that normally go to cities as it has done in past years because of the difficult economy.
Bellamy also named transportation, saying the state needed to rethink a decision to push back construction of a new interstate route through Asheville six years to 2014.
“One of the major things that is important to the city of Asheville is the Interstate 26 connector and getting that increased on the prioritization list,” she said.
The state should also increase funding for courts, seen as a weak link in the local criminal justice system, she said, and help cities fund more energy-saving green initiatives.
Dalton talked about I-26 and the idea of creating a major corridor between the mountains and Charlotte and Atlanta, saying “major arteries that are overloaded for commerce” need to get priority.
But he also said that in some cases commerce travels around North Carolina to the west of the mountains.
“We have to accept the realities of commerce and address the realities of commerce,” Dalton said.
By Joel Burgess • September 24, 2010
NC mayors meet in Asheville, seek to protect revenues (Asheville Citizen Times)
NC mayors meet in Asheville, seek to protect revenues (Asheville Citizen Times)
ASHEVILLE — State legislators should not push their budget problems off onto North Carolina cities and towns, mayors of the state’s largest municipalities said at the end of a two-day conference here Friday.
Revenues sent on to local governments are a traditional target in the General Assembly when the state’s budget picture darkens, and the Office of State Budget and Management says legislators could be facing a $3.3 billion budget deficit when they return to Raleigh next year.
Members of the N.C. Metropolitan Mayors Coalition, composed of mayors of 26 large cities and towns, said any moves to reduce revenues sent to municipalities or to require them to provide more services, would be painful.
“None of us are providing all of the services to our citizenry that we think they’re entitled to,” said Hickory Mayor Rudy Wright. “We’re doing what we can.”
About 45 people, including 18 mayors, attended the meeting at the upscale Grand Bohemian Hotel in Biltmore Village.
Many of the state’s urbanized areas grew dramatically during the last decade, sparking concern about disparities between North Carolina’s relatively prosperous cities and its poorer rural counties. Eight of the state’s 14 metropolitan areas had unemployment rates lower than the statewide rate in August.
But mayors Friday rejected any suggestion that their cities are in a better position than anyone else to help balance the state budget.
Some said they have had to freeze employee pay, eliminate jobs and take other steps to balance their own budgets.
“We’ve tightened our budget belts,” said Asheville Mayor Terry Bellamy.
Even rural residents would be affected if cities falter because of budget problems, said Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt.
“As our health goes, so goes the health of the state economically,” he said.
Mayors did not take a position on the prospect of reform of the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Commission system. Many of the state’s ABC stores are administered by municipalities and there have been scandals related to employee pay and other issues. Mayors did say that ABC revenue is an important source of revenue for cities and that should not be changed.
On another issue, Salisbury Mayor Susan Kluttz urged legislators to give the court system enough resources to deal with accused criminals expeditiously. Backlogs in the system contribute to crime problems in cities, she said.
By Mark Barrett • September 25, 2010
Hickory Mayor Attends Metro Mayors Coalition Meeting in Asheville (WHKY-TV)
Hickory Mayor Attends Metro Mayors Coalition Meeting in Asheville (WHKY-TV)
The N.C. Metropolitan Mayors Coalition met last Thursday and Friday in Asheville to begin building their advocacy agenda for the 2011 General Assembly Session. Among those in attendance was Hickory Mayor Rudy Wright.
The agenda focused on crime, transportation, biotechnology and local revenues. During the meeting, the Metro Mayors heard from special guests Lieutenant Governor Walter Dalton, N.C. State Treasurer Janet Cowell, and Jim Trogdon, Chief Operating Officer for the N.C. DOT.
The North Carolina Metropolitan Mayors Coalition, a group of mayors committed to the growth of North Carolina’s cities, deals with national and state issues affecting local governments. Founded in 2001, the Coalition promotes the interchange of ideas and experiences among municipal officials for the continued development of urban areas.
9/27/2010 6:48:11 AM
Durham DA’s plight prompts rapid response (News and Observer)
Durham DA’s plight prompts rapid response (News and Observer)
DURHAM District attorneys’ offices across the state are about to get some relief from the understaffing that has plagued them since last spring.
Five vacant positions in Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline’s office prompted her to drop out of the county’s Crime Cabinet last week. The cabinet brings together local law-enforcement agencies, the courts, businesses, neighborhoods and youth advocacy groups to share information and coordinate resources against crime.
“I am already giving too many serious cases to so few people,” Cline wrote to the Crime Cabinet on Friday. “Please excuse my absence for awhile.”
Cline’s note prompted action by Durham city and county officials. By Tuesday afternoon the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, which controls DA office budgets, had agreed to fill two of Durham’s empty positions come Oct. 1. That will still leave three empty spots, with one assistant district attorney out on maternity leave at least until January.
Gregg Stahl, the AOC’s senior deputy director, said Durham’s shortage was greater than some counties but smaller than others. Prosecutor’s offices in Orange and Chatham have no vacancies, and Wake County can fill its lone vacancy after Oct. 1.
But DA’s offices in Johnston, Harnett, Lee and Gaston counties will retain 20 percent staffing shortfalls because state statute limits their size while their actual needs have grown, based on an AOC formula.
“If you’re going to increase that number, you’ve got to get the statute changed,” Stahl said. “The formula was done in order to convince the General Assembly in the future that there are staffing needs in the districts.”
The AOC was able to permit the October hires in Wake and Durham because a hiring freeze that began in May saved about $3 million – a big chunk of the $13 million in cuts the legislature demanded from the Judicial Department last spring.
Cline said the Durham DA’s office is particularly short on assistant district attorneys who prosecute violent and sexual felonies. ADAs Stormy Ellis, Jan Paul, David Saacks and Phyllis Turner all left Cline’s office this year. Angela Garcia-Lamarca is on maternity leave at least until next year.
Cline and the remaining qualified ADAs, Mitch Garrell and Jim Dornfried, also have to handle new motions related to the Racial Justice Act and problems at the State Bureau of Investigation.
“There are worse off,” said Stahl. “But if I was sitting in [Cline’s] seat, I’d probably think it was pretty bad.”
Cline said the hiring freeze has forced her to assign serious cases to inexperienced attorneys for the discovery phase, where lawyers share evidence about a case. She is hoping that will buy time to hire enough lawyers to actually try the many murder cases on her docket.
“I’m trying to train some people to do murder cases so we can be sure that we can continue to try cases,” she said. “I don’t want the victims’ families in these cases to feel that the district attorney’s office is not going to pursue these cases with all the professionalism and thoroughness that we did before.”
The Crime Cabinet meets every two months. Several years ago, the group worked to ensure all offenders charged with a crime would be fingerprinted upon booking at the Durham County jail. The cabinet is currently examining the problem of witness intimidation in the courthouse and may propose penalties for enactment by the General Assembly.
[email protected] or 919-932-8760
Published Wed, Sep 15, 2010 05:44 AM
Modified Tue, Sep 14, 2010 08:17 PM
Transport Playtime Is Over (Carolina Journal)
Transport Playtime Is Over (Carolina Journal)
RALEIGH – To North Carolinians like me who grew up in a state once considered the epitome of rural and small-town life, the opportunities and challenges of urbanization still taking some getting used to.
Having lived in a few months in Los Angeles and a few years in Washington, I’ve experienced my share of maddening highway gridlock. Visits to other cities across the country have confirmed my dislike of traffic congestion and my preference for life and commuting on a smaller scale.
Only, North Carolina’s traffic doesn’t compare as favorably as it used to. Indeed, according to the latest national study of state highway performance by David Hartgen and his colleagues at the Reason Foundation, North Carolina ranks very poorly – 42nd – in urban interstate congestion.
You read that right. North Carolina’s urban interstates are among the most congested in the United States.
Stretches of I-77 and I-85 around Charlotte, I-40 in the Triangle and Triad, I-95 in the east, and I-26 in the west all feature crippling congestion during rush hours. As Hartgen wrote a while back in a John Locke Foundation study, traffic congestion in North Carolina is projected to more than double over the next quarter-century, with worsening conditions not just in Charlotte, the Triangle, and the Triad but also in smaller cities.
“That increased congestion threatens the state’s economic future,” he said. “Yet many regions have ignored the problem and propose spending limited transportation funds on ineffective projects that will not likely affect congestion.”
In other areas, North Carolina’s highway performance has improved somewhat in recent years. But major problems still remain, in both urban and rural areas. Here are some additional facts to keep in mind:
• North Carolina ranks among the worst in the country in the number of narrow highway lanes and in the number of deficient and obsolete bridges.
• Our motor-fuels tax is relatively high by national standards, and there is little public appetite for additional tax hikes.
• North Carolina is proceeding with several tollway projects, but it’s not yet clear how the public will respond to them.
Given the magnitude of the problem and the likelihood of tight government budgets over the next few years, North Carolina policymakers will need to make some tough decisions about priorities. We can’t afford to indulge pork-barrel considerations or fanciful notions of large numbers of Carolinians commuting to work by foot, bike, or train.
In other words, playtime is over. It’s time to get serious.
In yet another JLF study, published earlier this year, Hartgen argued that shifting funds from the 50 least cost-effective building projects could free up $2.5 billion to invest in maintenance or new capacity in high-priority transportation corridors.
Hartgen also argued that North Carolina needs to manage its transportation projects more efficiently, and avoid spending taxes from highway users on non-highway expenditures with limited payoff in safety, mobility, or economic development.
It’s a message that public officials and community leaders across our state need to hear, understand, and act on. Perhaps we should put it on the radio during rush hour, when we know they’ll have plenty of time to listen.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.
By John Hood
September 07, 2010
Obama Offers a Transit Plan to Create Jobs (The New York Times)
Obama Offers a Transit Plan to Create Jobs (The New York Times)
MILWAUKEE — President Obama, looking to stimulate a sluggish economy and create jobs, called Monday for Congress to approve major upgrades to the nation’s roads, rail lines and runways — part of a six-year plan that would cost tens of billions of dollars and create a government-run bank to finance innovative transportation projects.
With Democrats facing an increasingly bleak midterm election season, Mr. Obama used a speech at a union gathering on Labor Day, the traditional start of the campaign season, to outline his plan. It calls for a quick infusion of $50 billion in government spending that White House officials said could spur job growth as early as next year — if Congress approves.
That is a big if. Though transportation bills usually win bipartisan support, hasty passage of Mr. Obama’s plan seems unlikely, given that Congress has only a few weeks of work left before lawmakers return to their districts to campaign and that Republicans are showing little interest in giving Democrats any pre-election victories.
Central to the plan is the president’s call for an “infrastructure bank,” which would be run by the government but would pool tax dollars with private investment, the White House says. Mr. Obama embraced the idea as a senator; with unemployment still high despite an array of government efforts, the concept has lately been gaining traction in policy circles and on Capitol Hill.
Indeed, some leading proponents of such a bank — including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican of California; Gov. Ed Rendell, Democrat of Pennsylvania; and Michael R. Bloomberg, the independent mayor of New York — would like to see it finance a broader range of projects, including water and clean-energy projects. They say such a bank would spur innovation by allowing a panel of experts to approve projects on merit, rather than having lawmakers simply steer transportation money back home.
“It will change the way Washington spends your tax dollars,” Mr. Obama said here, “reforming the haphazard and patchwork way we fund and maintain our infrastructure to focus less on wasteful earmarks and outdated formulas, and more on competition and innovation that gives us the best bang for the buck.”
But the notion of a government-run bank — indeed, a government-run anything — is bound to prove contentious during an election year in which voters are furious over bank bailouts and over what many perceive as Mr. Obama pursuing a big government agenda. Even before the announcement Monday, Republicans were expressing caution.
“It’s important to keep in mind that increased spending — no matter the method of delivery — is not free,” said Representative Pat Tiberi, an Ohio Republican who is on a Ways and Means subcommittee that held hearings on the bank this year. He warned that “federally guaranteed borrowing and lending could place taxpayers on the hook should the proposed bank fail.”
The announcement comes after weeks of scrambling by a White House desperate to give a jolt to the lackluster recovery, and is part of a broader package of proposals that Mr. Obama intends to introduce on Wednesday during a speech in Cleveland. The transportation initiative would revise and extend legislation that has lapsed.
Specifically, the president wants to rebuild 150,000 miles of road, lay and maintain 4,000 miles of rail track, restore 150 miles of runways and advance a next-generation air-traffic control system.
The White House did not offer a price tag for the full measure or say how many jobs it would create. If Congress simply reauthorized the expired transportation bill and accounted for inflation, the new measure would cost about $350 billion over the next six years. But Mr. Obama wants to “frontload” the new bill with an additional $50 billion in initial investment to generate jobs, and vowed it would be “fully paid for.” The White House is proposing to offset the $50 billion by eliminating tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas industry.
After months of campaigning on the theme that the president’s $787 billion stimulus package was wasteful, Republicans sought Monday to tag the new plan with the stimulus label. The Republican National Committee called it “stimulus déjà vu,” and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, characterized it as “yet another government stimulus effort.”
But Governors Rendell and Schwarzenegger, and Mayor Bloomberg, who in 2008 founded a bipartisan coalition to promote transportation upgrades, praised Mr. Obama. And in policy circles, the plan, especially the call for the infrastructure bank, is generating serious debate.
“This is a very ripe policy question now,” said Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, who has been working for several years on blueprints for a bank.
On Capitol Hill, Representatives James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has been developing his own bill, as has Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut.
Ms. DeLauro’s plan would create an infrastructure bank that would be part of the United States Treasury, where it would attract money from institutional investors, then channel the funds to projects selected by a panel. The program, which would make loans much like the World Bank, would finance projects with the potential to transform whole regions, or even the national economy, the way the interstate highway system and the first transcontinental railway once did.
The outside investors would expect a competitive return on their money, so many of the completed projects would have to charge fees, taxes or tolls. In an interview, Ms. DeLauro said she would be “looking at a broader base,” meaning the bank would finance not just roads and rails, but also telecommunications, water, drainage, green energy and other large-scale works.
But if the projects did not raise enough money, the Treasury might get stuck paying back the investors, a prospect that gave pause to so-called deficit hawks like Mr. Tiberi. In an e-mail last week, he said he agreed the nation’s road and communications networks needed to be improved but was concerned about creating another company like Fannie Mae that might need a bailout.
Inside the White House, the idea for a transportation initiative, and in particular an infrastructure bank, is one that the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has been promoting. It was not included in the original $787 billion stimulus program because the administration and Congressional Democratic leaders wanted to pass that package as quickly as possible.
There is no shortage of projects in search of money. The problem, analysts say, is that Congress, which would create the bank, is not known for its ability to single out strategic priorities for growth. Instead, it traditionally builds broad support by giving a little something to everybody — Montana, for instance, would get a small amount of Amtrak money in return for its support for improvements along the Northeast corridor.
“We don’t prioritize,” Mr. Puentes said. “We take this kind of peanut butter approach of spreading investment dollars around very thinly, without targeting them.”
Samuel Staley, director of urban growth and land-use policy for the Reason Foundation, a libertarian research group, said the best way to spend money efficiently would be to establish the bank as a revolving loan fund so that money for new projects would not become available until money for previous projects had been repaid.
Mr. Staley expressed concern that in their zeal to spur growth and create jobs, Congress and the Obama administration would not impose such limits.
“With the $800 billion stimulus program, they were literally just dumping money into the economy,” he said. “There was little legitimate cost-benefit analysis.”
Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported from Milwaukee and Mary Williams Walsh from New York.