When Hillary Clinton mentioned her plan for an “Infrastructure Bank” during the debate in Flint, Michigan, I thought it sounded familiar.
Because it sounds a lot like Rep. John Delaney’s H.R. 2084 from the 113th Congress.
Clinton’s plan would seed the bank with $25 Billion, and then leverage that money into an additional $225 Billion in loans.
HR 2084 was an obvious attempt to skirt banking regulations by creating an entity empowered with fractional reserve banking but not being labeled as a bank per se. Clinton’s plan at least concedes this detail, and admits it will be a bank.
What I’m waiting for is the other shoe to drop. Both Delaney’s original plan, and his revised attempt, H.R. 625, the Infrastructure 2.0 Act, rely on granting tax amnesty to repatriated corporate profits in order to raise the initial capital needed. The first plan could have cost the government $50 Billion in tax revenues in order to raise the $50 Billion in seed capital. The second plan is even worse, implementing a permanent 8.75% tax rate on repatriated corporate profits, which would actually encourage companies to move their headquarters to the Bahamas to avoid the brunt of U.S. taxes.
When Hillary Clinton proposes a plan that is nearly identical to the one that Rep. Delaney proposed, I become very wary that there’s a hidden component that is also identical to Delaney’s. Will Clinton’s Infrastructure Bank include repatriation amnesty? Watch for it.