It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The 2011 Bipartisan "Build Act" - Hint: It's not really about "Infrastructure"

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:39 PM
What could be more important than our ability to create and maintain our national infrastructure? Could anything rise to the level of being more immediately necessary than having roads, railways, bridges, damns, and access to water, power, and communications - the tools of our ability to prosper? It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of not letting our national infrastructure decay around us.

Aside from the immediate importance of the effort to maintain our flow of goods and services; there is also a matter of something less tangible, but still significant – our national pride. Our nation demonstrated exceptional industry, ingenuity, and resolve with colossal works and engineering achievements that remain impressive to this day.

Enter reality. Time stands still for no one. No work of mankind can last without his stewardship. It requires a clear commitment to accept the need to value the ongoing mission: to keep our people capable of participating in the American enterprise. It means this is not an ‘opportunity for the present’ but instead a ‘dire responsibility for our future.’

Yet there is a problem. It has become less than 'attractively profitable' to maintain these things. People, convinced by mass media that entertainment was most important, would rather spend millions in tax dollars on sports arenas, than refurbish schools and playgrounds; many would rather that their home team was better accommodated, before any consideration be given to their homeless. Sadly,it didn’t take much convincing; and the media conglomerates who prosper from entertainment spared no effort to extol the ‘business’ value of such investments… while bridges collapse, and gas lines rupture explosively in neighborhoods, or toxic waste dumps fester and disperse their poison into “someone else’s” back yard.

Those with the readily available means to restore safety and robustness to our infrastructure are those who own and direct industrial activity in our country. The captains of industry are now global however, and their attention to the profit growth paradigm calls them away from marginal gains that do not sufficiently serve the object of their loyalty…, the growth of their business’ ‘bottom-line.’ Our political representatives maintain that these industrialists must now be cajoled with incentives, and paid proper tribute to entice them into doing that which needs doing; as it is no longer ‘their problem’ since the solution represents no high-value profit – which is the ‘fiduciary object’ of corporate existence.

[color=3BB9FF]The Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long-Term Development Act: a.k.a. "The Build Act”

Govtrack legislation text:
Legislation as PDF file:

The establishment “line” or…, how they are “marketing” the Act to the tax-payers

Define the problem......
“Americans confront the need for better infrastructure every day they use our outdated roads, bridges, trains, and airports. American businesses experience it too: our economy loses $80 billion every year because of blackouts on outdated transmission and grid infrastructure and traffic on our roads and highways. And our urban sewage systems are overflowing due to aging water infrastructure.”

A solution proposed:
“The BUILD Act is a bold solution that establishes an American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA) - a type of infrastructure bank - to complement our existing infrastructure funding. This institution, which would provide loans and loan guarantees, would be both fiscally responsible and robust enough to address America’s needs.”


Some may see this as I do... our government is attempting to create yet another “quasi-governmental" (read privately owned - publicly funded) BANK. (Just like: Freddy Mac, Fannie Mae, The Federal Reserve, and the Export/Import Bank all of which have had the effect of transferring debt from politically-sanctioned private enterprise, to the public – while simultaneously protecting the Bank from accountability, and the private owners’ profit from any liability.)

The American Infrastructure Financing Authority will be a new revenue stream to be exploited by the global (supranational) financial cartel of middlemen who feel entitled to the subsidy of public investment - as long as they are the only ones who control it... and they are free to gamble with the proceeds... taking winnings as their 'entitlement earnings' and setting losses as 'cost of business’ to the taxpayer.

Note the promise of "political independence"... could that be an empty promise, or perhaps it indicates subjugation to the many-tentacled banking beast?
edit on 24-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:39 PM
A glimpse of the "construct"...
March 17, 2011
Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
[color=F778A1]A BILL
To facilitate efficient investments and financing of infrastructure projects and new job creation through the establishment of an American Infrastructure Financing Authority, to provide for an extension of the exemption from

the alternative minimum tax treatment for certain tax-exempt bonds, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 301. FEES.


To the point: The “bi-partisan” effort in the Senate to create a new bank.

Here’s the idea that we are intended to ‘accept’… don’t expect it to be true… scrutiny of the bill itself demonstrates the difference between what we are told, and what we can expect:

  1. AIFA is independent of the political process.
  2. It would fund the most important and most economically viable projects across the country, our states, and our communities.
  3. AIFA is also fiscally responsible.
  4. While AIFA will receive initial funding from the government, after that it must become self-sustaining.
  5. AIFA closely follows the Export-Import Bank model, which has helped to boost American exports and has been profitable overall to the government since 1991.
  6. AIFA relies on the private sector.
  7. It can never provide more than 50 percent of a project’s costs, and in many cases would provide much less, just enough to bring in private investment.

Now apply your sensibilities to this description… the idea, as described, sounds very good:

No political theater to obstruct progress (defined as making loans.) The bank will apparently be subject to a mandate to limit its activity to the financial support of national infrastructure projects. It will be “seeded” by tax-payer dollars initially, but afterwards should operate under its own economic power. AIFA will be similar – by design to the “Export-Import Bank of the United States.” It will apparently rely on revenue streams from private sector to operate, and will never participate financially funding more than 50% of any project.

Nearly everything you have just read in this “intended” description of AIFA is suspect.


Into the breach: Looking at the nuts and bolts of the Infrastructure bill.

By systematically digesting each element of the Act we will see a different entity take shape from the AIFA we are told will save the national infrastructure (as well as “create” jobs and “promote green industry.”)

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:39 PM
Caution: The journey you are about to take will be at worst, an infuriating disappointment, and at best, an example of how financial interests secure, retain, and propagate control of our economy as well as the powerful people who, one way or another, are set to run our country.

I must beg your indulgence as I traverse the bill, top to bottom. My intent is to highlight the contradictions of reason, the obfuscation of fact, and the promise of another opaque, mercurial, totally sovereign bank which operates for its own benefit, while adding billions of dollars to our national debt year after year.



The table of contents and title are relatively proforma, nothing noteworthy here…


Findings and Purpose are where the case is made for the bill itself. And this is where the scrutiny begins in earnest.

There is wisdom in the adage: “He who lives in the past robs the present, and he who forgets it robs the future.” Things as they have been, lead to things that are, which give rise to what will be. I don’t expect this bill to change in essence, despite what I point out here. This is because no one listens to the voices outside the cabal of power, and those who crafted this bill knew exactly what their goal was. And it was not about infrastructure at all… but finance and sovereign authority for yet another bank.

Section 1 is superfluous if it were not for the fact that the term “Build Act” had been used before; so they must make clear that this act is different.

Section 2 provides us with what is ostensibly the foundation of reason upon which this bill stands. It is in this section that thirteen ‘facts’ (or “findings”) are offered and, the thesis (or main idea) of the bill is encapsulated in the “purpose”


What did the drafters “find”?

Apparently, the authors of the bill assure us that failing infrastructure is in no way consistent with our understanding of international leadership; as once exemplified when our nation undertook huge infrastructure products which coincided with our rise to international prominence after World War 2 (items 1 and 2.) The authors then include the notions and proclamations rendered by various global and local organizations whose posture or support for this idea is evident – although the support is based on information from years ago (Items 3 through 7.) We are advised that neither Federal nor State funding levels are currently sufficient to address this matter, and are further worsened by state and local municipalities’ infrastructure investments in decline (this decline is described in terms of their investment confidence, and lowered credit ratings) (items 8 through 10.) The findings close with two items which explain the need for funding exceeding available means, and assertions that capital markets (pension funds, private equity funds, mutual funds, sovereign wealth funds, and other investors) are interested in such investments (items 11 and 12.) Finally, item 13 declares that a United States Government-owned, independent, professionally-managed institution making transparent merit-based investment decisions based on the commercial viability of infrastructure projects, would catalyze the participation of significant private investment capital.

Of note in these findings: Any assessment of failing municipal and local funding which fails to include the known misbehaviors of “credit agency” manipulation as part of a monetary policy scheme is playing on ignorance of the power of the financial cartel which controls this economy. Stating that ‘capital markets’ are interested in these investments without adding the common sense – “for profit” reality tricks the unwary into naively thinking these “markets” are doing it because “It’s the right thing to do.” And the last item is an outright lie: They want to call this a “government-owned” entity – but they want it not to be subject to any laws governing those entities… as you will see later on in the legislation.


What is the “purpose” of the bill?

The stated "[color=A0C544]purpose" seems to tell us everything important to the drafters... "Facilitate investment," "Long term financing," "complements existing funding sources," "mobilize significant private sector investment..." among others.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:40 PM
One would have to be purposefully myopic to avoid recognizing the creation of yet another institution to support those 'politically' destined to be corporate 'haves,' and facilitate the transfer of wealth from the non-corporate 'have nots,' while removing any liability for risk - which will be - as usual, born by the tax-payer... paying for this 'long-term' financing for generations to come....

Thus ensuring… ...continuity of control by economic submission... a nice example of the mind of "both parties" ('bi-partisan') - something they can actually agree on without theater. It's not really surprising - since both parties are subject to the same largess and control from the power of "free speech" - (remember: the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that “money” used to influence politics is no less protected than “free speech.”)


Definitions: The Haystack for their needles...


It is customary to clarify terms within legislation. This reasonable practice is often used to artfully provide misdirection, and subtle specificity.

Herein lays the matters that our politicians will characterize as non-threatening and for our own good. Let us begin with some of the terms they ‘define’ for us… or in certain cases, “redefine”.

There are in all some 16 items which the authors believed required the specificity of an entry in the “definitions” section of the bill. Some are interesting:

High on the list of things to ‘clear up’ is the presence of the concept of “Blind Trust” (item 2)– as we have become more familiar with the term as those avoiding the ‘appearance’ of impropriety we know that “[color=#4f81bd]The term ‘blind trust’ means a trust in which the beneficiary has no knowledge of the specific holdings and no rights over how those holdings are managed by the fiduciary of the trust prior to the dissolution of the trust.” Since a ‘negative’ cannot be logically proven, we have to assume that the ‘trustee’ has no knowledge of actions he or she may take that exemplify ‘self-interest.’ This condition of “Blind Trust” will be the shield of those who profit; and yet proclaim they were just ‘smart investors.’

Further on, the sleight of hand comes into play. It is achieved thus; (item 6) defines the term “cost” by stating that it is the same definition as was used in [color=#00b050]Section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)... which, incidentally, is a “Definitions” chapter that lists a lengthy definition of “Cost” which includes nearly a dozen stipulations regarding the word and what it’s meant to mean: [color=#00b050]“The term “cost” means the estimated long-term cost to the Government of a direct loan or loan guarantee or modification thereof, calculated on a net present value basis, excluding administrative costs and any incidental effects on governmental receipts or outlays.” (Emphasis mine) Item 6 will keep us from knowing the difference between cost and “price,” since the true cost is never known... profit from ‘administrative overhead’ etc. is not included – although we still must pay for it.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:40 PM
Item 7 defines “Direct Loan” in these terms: “[color=#00b050]The term “direct loan” means a disbursement of funds by the Government to a non-Federal borrower under a contract that requires the repayment of such funds with or without interest. The term includes the purchase of, or participation in, a loan made by another lender and financing arrangements that defer payment for more than 90 days, including the sale of a Government asset on credit terms. The term does not include the acquisition of a federally guaranteed loan in satisfaction of default claims or the price support loans of the Commodity Credit Corporation. I am uncertain as to whether it is meant to appear that a “Direct Loan” is almost anything the authors want it to be. But it does seem clear that the notion of selling a government asset (which by definition, belongs to the people of the United States) on “credit” terms is considered a “direct loan”… not something I want associated with our infrastructure – selling toll roads, damns, bridges, and other important things in our nation isn’t part of what I want a private banker (more later) to be able to do unilaterally.

Item 8 defines eligibility to apply for this funding, and specifies that “[color=#4f81bd]The term ‘eligible entity’ means an individual, corporation, partnership (including a public-private partnership), joint venture, trust, State, or other governmental entity, including a political subdivision or any other instrumentality of a State, or a revolving fund.”

Hence 'Political' entities...and ‘Revolving funds' ... are 'eligible' parts of our infrastructure issues.

Is it me... or is item 8 somehow not in keeping with the idea of "politically independent?"

Item 9 expounds on the kinds of projects which are pertinent to this Act. It is fairly specific and does include the mention of ‘green’ projects…, but sub item (E) makes the specificity mean nothing. It identifies the extent of the power of the board of this bank… “ [color=#4f81bd](E) BOARD AUTHORITY TO MODIFY SUBSECTORS - The Board of Directors may make modifications, at the discretion of the Board, to the subsectors described in this paragraph by a vote of not fewer than 5 of the voting members of the Board of Directors. The ostensibly apolitical, expert, and 'private' board will rule supreme over matters of what constitutes an "Infrastructure Project" insofar as this Act is concerned. This item basically authorized the politically appointed "Board of Directors" (see further on) to have discretion which supersedes the legislation's delineation of 'eligible projects.'

Item 10 is one that subjects the people to exposure to abuse by defining “Investment Grade Rating” … “[color=#0070c0]The term ‘investment-grade rating’ means a rating of BBB minus, Baa3, or higher assigned to an infrastructure project by a ratings agency.” Now, most of us here have seen the chaos and disruption that "credit rating agencies" have wrought upon the economy of our country – (and the world for that matter) here we have codified continued submission to their confidence game. Can there be any doubt to whom the power is being given?

edit on 24-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:40 PM
In item 11 once again, this "Definitions" subchapter refers to another "Definitions" subchapter – one particularly heinous concession from [color=#00b050]section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a) about the term “Loan Guarantee: “The term “loan guarantee” means any guarantee, insurance, or other pledge with respect to the payment of all or a part of the principal or interest on any debt obligation of a non-Federal borrower to a non-Federal lender, but does not include the insurance of deposits, shares, or other withdrawable accounts in financial institutions.

Item 11 is the actual rule that renders taxpayers liable for business loan failure... the banks can't lose... only we can.

The remaining definitions include few variations from what we've seen thus far, to summarize; a public-private partnership has at least one non-governmental entity who will own, lease, or operate the finished "infrastructure project" in whole or in part - meaning that once embarked on the project - the profit is theirs. It limits the application of the Act's support to farmers and other 'rural' projects. Further it extends the act to all US territories as if they were “states.”

By the time we get to Title 1 of this act, the stage has been set to facilitate the emergence of a powerful new institution over which we, as the people who birthed it, have no real control, no authority to redress, nor the ability to see exactly what they are doing… just like the Federal Reserve, and the rest of the “quasi-governmental” ilk, which first poisons our economy, and then parasitically feeds off of its withering parts.



Wake up and smell the coffee: Authority without Accountability


So what legally is the AFIA? Section 101 offers a simple ‘standard’ definition with one powerful proviso at the end:

  1. It is a wholly-owned Government corporation
  2. It shall provide direct loans and loan guarantees... and shall have such other authority, as provided in this Act.
  3. Incorporation.... the AIFA is a corporation resident in Washington DC....
  4. The Secretary of State is responsible for taking such action to 'implement' this "Act"

... And now... the VERY BIG problem.....

e - "Rule of Construction- Chapter 91 of title 31, United States Code" "does not apply to AIFA, unless otherwise specifically provided in this Act.

(For the record, nowhere else in this Act is stipulated any adherence to Chapter 91’s “Rule of Construction”)

This ‘exempt’ status is MOST IMPORTANT!!

The entire point of [color=#00b050]Chapter 91 title 31's "Rule of Construction"
[color=#00b050] is the establishment of regulatory controls for financial institutions which operate for the benefit of the people of the United States... this statue includes some verbiage that might trouble the "for-profit banking industry" which will effectively "own" this bank.... for example:
edit on 24-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:41 PM
Because of sub-item (e), NONE of the following “other laws” apply to the “quasi-governmental” AIFA...

[color=#00b050]...Each wholly owned Government Corporation shall prepare and submit each year to the President a business-type budget in a way, and before a date, the President prescribes by regulation for the budget program.


...contain estimates of the financial condition and operations of the corporation for the current and following fiscal years and the condition and results of operations in the last fiscal year;

...contain statements of financial condition, income and expense, and sources and use of money, an analysis of surplus or deficit, and additional statements and information to make known the financial condition and operations of the corporation, including estimates of operations by major activities, administrative expenses, borrowings, the amount of United States Government capital that will be returned to the Treasury during the fiscal year, and appropriations needed to restore capital impairments


...The financial statements of Government corporations shall be audited by the Inspector General of the corporation appointed under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), or under other Federal law, or by an independent external auditor, as determined by the Inspector General....

...The Comptroller General of the United States -
(A) may review any audit of a financial statement conducted under this subsection by an Inspector General or an external auditor;

(B) shall report to the Congress, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the head of the Government Corporation which prepared the statement, regarding the results of the review and make any recommendation the Comptroller General of the United States considers appropriate; and

(C) may audit a financial statement of a Government corporation at the discretion of the Comptroller General or at the request of a committee of the Congress…

Allow me to close with this excerpt which the proponents of this Bank must have found particularly stifling:

[color=#00b050]“The Secretary shall collect and publish quarterly financial statistics of business operations, organization, practices, management, and relation to other businesses, including data on sales, expenses, profits, assets, liabilities, stockholders’ equity, and related accounts generally used by businesses in income statements, balance sheets, and other measures of financial condition.”

The bottom line is; the “Rule of Construction” is a law of – and all about - accountability.

By the way, there are a few other notable exceptions to those entities which are covered under Chapter 91 of title 31:.... for instance, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Import/Export bank and Fannie Mae, and both Freddie and Indy Mac.

Among such “stellar performers” (sarcasm intended) one has to wonder why our legislators are so confident in this practice of hybridizing corporate banks with government.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:41 PM

Who gets to play “The Bosses”?


Section 102 offers several contradictions to the opening descriptions; for example item (a) tells us that the “independence from the political process” (politically independent) AIFA bank board-members will be politically appointed. Item (c) narrows down eligible members to a roster which can only consist of names of politically-relevant agency insiders and barons of financial industry (and subsection two uses very unique wording to limit the qualifications; “… must have significant demonstrated experience...” which on the surface seems reasonable until the next section (103). As we move to item (e) we learn that while all board meetings are open to the public, they may be closed if: “…there is likely to be disclosed proprietary or sensitive information regarding an infrastructure project under consideration for assistance under this Act.” This is clearly disingenuous because: – at what point have we ever seen the terms of a major capital loan for a multi-billion dollar project for national infrastructure NOT be deemed either "proprietary" or "a sensitive national security concern"? Item (g) shows us that any voting member will be free to invest in companies with upcoming contracts, since they will - by definition - have no affiliation with them before the decision to give them money is made.


Who’s in charge here? We’ll let you know.


The CEO is normally the principle non-voting member endowed with executive authority and ultimate accountability (except in the quasigovernmental world.) Item (b) affirms the politically-appointed nature of this “politically independent” post. In an interesting contrast to Section 102 Item (c) we have this Section’s item (c) which expresses that the CEO “…shall have significant expertise…” instead of “Significant demonstrated experience” which I find illuminating as to who will be placed in such positions and which revolving door it connects to on the way in and on the way out. The ‘safeguard’ against abuse lies in item 2 sub-item (C) calling for any potential beneficiary companies to have the investments of the CEO’s in “blind trust”…. Meaning he or she doesn’t have to be “disconnected” from the industry because he can claim ignorance of any financial transactions his or her agents might take.


We’re not liable for ANYTHING, but we decide our compensation, not you!


Item 4 says that AIFA is exempted from all federal employment (including military) regulation by chapter 51 or subchapter III of chapter 53 of Title 5, United Sates Code. This is the area of legislation that governs compensation, and then some. By the very nature of this explicit exemption, we will see yet another institution who's member "benefits" are concealed from the public... although we are liable for their compensation - which the "board" will determine without such constraints as set forth in legislation.

By the way: Title 5 of the United States Code is organized into “Parts,” not "Sections." Chapters 51 and 53 fall under Subpart D of Part III. It may seem trivial, but this is national legislation, and I would have expected better editorial execution on the drafters’ part (no pun intended.)

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:41 PM
Item 6 - Note this stipulation would appear necessary since they are codifying its authority despite its private nature (under the guise of public office.)

Item 7 - Note that item 7 is a superfluous entry since a quorum is previously defined as 5 members and as such, would be the requisite for a change in bylaws... unless they specified Board-determined exemptions to which is being 'changed.' Room to obfuscate is being granted herein.

Item 8 - grants the power - in the name of the people of the United States - for this entity, the AIFA to be a sovereign entity separate from them... go figure.

Item 8 (B)- Point of interest... as this bill is written ([color=#4f81bd]A): The restrictions and limitations of a "wholly owned Federal corporation" are not applicable to AIFA but ([color=#4f81bd]B): all of the priviledges, powers, and authorities (plus more) are.....

Welcome to the Federal Reserve Bank's newest off-spring.

Item 8 (D)- Seems to mean the AIFA can issue "bonds?" And if so, does that not create more financial vehicles of risk taking, the same hazard that made Wall Street “drunk” and the banks, reckless?

Item 8 (G)- Only Federal courts have jurisdiction over a DC corporation.

Item 8 (H)- I am sure the politically independent and expert-run "private" bank known as the AIFA will much appreciate the TOTAL indemnification this act provides.... "indemnify the members of the Board of Directors and officers of AIFA for any liabilities…" seems in keeping with Fannie, Freddy, and our own Federal Reserve....


Hire and fire at our whim; and help our corporate buddies too!


Noteworthy points here include the naming of positions, operational parameters, and a few choice stipulations such as:

Item (c) where it is decreed that each member of senior management shall serve at the pleasure of the chief executive officer (sic) and the Board of Directors.

Item (e) (2) (F) is also interesting because it calls for a splinter organization to be created by the Chief Lending Officer who…

[color=#4f81bd]…is responsible for the creation and management of a "Center for Excellence" to provide technical assistance to public sector borrowers in the development and financing of infrastructure projects; and an "Office of Rural Assistance" to provide technical assistance in the development and financing of rural infrastructure projects.

I find the creation of more government offices to “assist” multi-billion dollar transnational corporations seems a bit less like infrastructure stimulus and a bit more like corporate welfare. How do companies get big enough to qualify as eligible yet remain feeble-minded enough to require hand-holding processes to apply for a loan?

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:42 PM

You can watch us for 5 years…, after that… umm… no; we get a ‘special’ guy!


Item (a) tells us that the first 5 years, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury shall have responsibility for AIFA; after that the President will appoint one (with the 'consultation of the Senate’) for the item (b) Office of the Special Inspector General for AIFA. (Isn’t this yet another political appointee?)

Notice that in item (c) sub-item (5) the drafters have eliminated yet anotherRule of Construction,” namely that this new ‘special’ inspector general will not be restricted against lobbying and political financial activities as proscribed under section 7324 of title 5, United States Code which outlines the prohibitions of “Political Activities on Duty.” The norm is that any policy-maker in such a politically appointed office should never enjoy the benefit of public subsidy to advance political aims…. except, (by this legislation) for the Special inspector General of AIFA. Care to guess why?

Item (d) explains that all the activities and responsibilities of the Special Investigator shall be consistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) plus to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the business activities of AIFA, establish, maintain, and oversee such systems, procedures, and controls; the section also makes specific references to point out section 6 of the Inspector General Act of 1978(regarding his potential subordination to federal emergency code), and section 4(b)(1) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (which justifies higher pay).

Item (f) grants the Special Inspector General the authority to engage in employing people as it is set forth in of section 3161 of title 5, United States Code … except the part that explains that these compensation rules relates to temporary (three years or less) government entities only. Again, why? In sub-item (4) we see the authority of the AIFA to request information from ANY other federal entity, with all refusals to comply immediately reported to the Secretary of Treasury.

But note: aside from routine yearly reporting summarizing the activities of the Special Inspector General..., "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize the public disclosure of information that is--

[color=#4f81bd](A) Specifically prohibited from disclosure by any other provision of law;
[color=#4f81bd](B) Specifically required by Executive order to be protected from disclosure in the interest of national defense or national security or in the conduct of foreign affairs; or
[color=#4f81bd](C) A part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

This is to say, there are numerous ways to conceal the activities of AIFA upon the declaration of the existence of certain unaccountable factors. And since most infrastructure-project information will be deemed “sensitive”, and most financial activity data “proprietary”… what will be left to report?
Answer: generalities… just like the Fed.


Aside from the Board, CEO, Senior Management, and the Inspector, all other employees are just worker drones


The Board and CEO appoint and dismiss, as well as assign and define duties for all other personnel.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:42 PM

This Act only “adds” to regulations in place by states, not supersede them.


This act does not eliminate the regulations regarding infrastructure projects that any State has already enacted.



Dollars and (non)sense, or Contradictions Codified.


“Only for public benefit” and “no existing infrastructure project refinancing” stand as the central theme; but the provisos added give some better weight to the list:

Item (a) and item (b) take the form of the litany of rationale for creating the debt which this organization will engender.

Note that item (a) demands adherence to this Act’s contents, that the Board or CEO’s unspecified criteria are met, and – strangely enough – that the project under consideration meet the “definition of a transportation infrastructure project, water infrastructure project, or energy infrastructure project.” [color=#c0504d]However, as we saw previously under the Definitions section item (9) sub-item (e) the Board of Directors have discretion which supersedes the legislation's delineation of 'eligible projects.' I am uncertain as to which element of this legislation will take precedent – except it will likely be whatever the Board wants, since they have been explicitly empowered to make the determination to their own satisfaction.

Item (b) mandates that the Board “shall provide adequate consideration” to a list of factors, most of which seem very reasonable. But a few stipulations strikes me as noteworthy, for example sub-item (2)(D) where the Board must consider “[color=#4f81bd]whether there is sufficient State or municipal [color=#c0504d]political support[color=#c0504d] [color=#4f81bd]for the successful completion of the infrastructure project” which strikes me as odd considering the supposed ‘non-political’ nature of the bank – and the ostensibly evident “need” for the infrastructure project in the first place.

In item (c) (3) we see that any application must include a “dedicated” revenue source specifying that the loan “[color=#4f81bd]shall be repayable, in whole or in part, from tolls, user fees, or other dedicated revenue sources that also secure the infrastructure project obligations.” If we stop to consider that the debt will be repaid by the users of such benefits as the project represents, we must recognize that [color=#c0504d]the tax-payers are the one’s paying this loan back… not the businesses borrowing the money.

Item (d) tells us that the “minimum” infrastructure project loan will be one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) or twenty five million ($25,000,000) if it’s a “rural” project.

Item (e) says that in any case, “[color=#4f81bd]the amount of a direct loan or loan guarantee under this Act shall not exceed the lesser of 50 percent of the reasonably anticipated eligible infrastructure project costs or, if the direct loan or loan guarantee does not receive an investment grade rating, the amount of the senior project obligations.” This seems to [color=#c0504d]contradict the “Definitions” Item (10) which appears to require at least “[color=#4f81bd]…a rating of BBB minus, Baa3, or higher…” to qualify, but under this provision, maybe not; it all depends on “[color=#4f81bd]the amount of the senior project obligations” which, as a layman, strikes me a unacceptably vague.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:42 PM
Each year, the AIFA may make no more than a certain total amount of loans according to sub-item (2)....

(A) during the first 2 fiscal years of the operations of AIFA, $10,000,000,000;
(B) during fiscal years 3 through 9 of the operations of AIFA, $20,000,000,000; or
(C) during any fiscal year thereafter, $50,000,000,000.

That’s $20 billion (year 1 and 2), another $140 billion (years 3-9), and $50 billion each year thereafter.

Presumably, the bank will make loans up to its limit and that means during the first decade (barring Executive Order) $210 billion dollars will be "created" (in debt form) against the $10 billion (in debt) the Federal government will use to 'seed' the bank. (Isn’t that a 21:1 ratio of fractional reserve lending? – Is that normal?)

At any rate, if we were to assume it will require $4 trillion to restore our infrastructure to something sustainable and reasonably suitable for our population; it will require half a century to get there... never mind how long it will take to pay it off. This does not sound to me like a ‘new era’ of infrastructure development; although the banks will benefit greatly, the industry will siphon off their share, and we will be saddled with more debt growth for our grandchildren.

AIFA can, (and I wager will) "mobilize other" financial partners in project financing, opening the door to more politically well-placed middlemen to siphon off the wealth ("wealth" for the corporation - "debt" for the nation) being distributed. Since the requirement of a "dedicated revenue source" is specified I can only assume we are going to see a lot of toll bridges, toll roads, and fee-based infrastructure costs affecting non-corporate personal economies.


Have we got a deal for you...


OK - there's plenty of room for debate in this section... so here we go.

First, the loan terms detailed in item (b) makes it clear that the AIFA will be loaning money out to build billion-dollar infrastructure projects... which will be paid for by the users of that infrastructure. We must recognize that the beneficiaries of this, aside from those users, are all those who can build a profit margin into the projects... overhead, administrative costs, pass through costs, labor benefits for investments, and all other such streams of revenue that make business worth doing. In the end, it will not be the "borrower" who makes good on the debt... the plan is that the tax-payer payer will.

Item (c) makes law that the interest rate (profit for the bankers) which will be charged must be greater than it would be if they simply invested in US government bonds.... a rate which is controlled by the master bank, the Federal Reserve. Perhaps I am too cynical to expect this to not to represent an obscene profit opportunity for the stake-holders of the banks - which all have a common corporate interest.

Item (d) reaffirms the apparent iron-clad dependence upon "credit rating agencies" which - despite recent history - seem to have the unquestioning faith and support of the financial system and her owners.

Item (e) The CEO will be generating more income for the AIFA via a "credit fee" of his devising - which could be paid mostly from the AIFA bank account set up to 'subsidize' the service... in other words - tax payers may end up paying for that too. (and we have to wonder if the "cost" of that fee won't be "built-in" the loan amount anyway... insult to injury…; By the way, this 'extra' income is above and beyond the 'base interest rate' of the loan... so it will be a 'separate' value deemed to bolster the illusion that this bank is "self-sustaining.'

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:42 PM
Item (f) says that it is possible the loan may not mature until up to 35 years after the project is completed.... interesting provision....

Item (g) simply reaffirms that the loan/venture must be granted an "investment-grade rating" by any credit rating agency.... although an exception to this rule exists above in Item (e). One has to wonder why the exception is not noted.

Item (h) specifies that at the 5-year mark AIFA's portfolio of shall cumulatively meet the "investment-grade rating" criteria...although it includes an oblique reference to “senior obligations of the infrastructure project.”

Item (i) explains that aside from the project cash flow, repayment of the loan may come from "other repayment sources" and the repayment can begin up to 5 years after the completion of the project. The CEO can at his or her discretion, authorize 'deferment;' and what's more he or she may allow the obligor to add unpaid principal and interest to the outstanding balance of the direct loan. The debtor may use excess revenue to pay-down the loan, and can be re-financed with a non-governmental loan to pay the debt off completely. Once the project is complete the loan can be 'sold' or 'repackaged' as an investment vehicle ("may sell to another entity, or reoffer into the capital markets, a direct loan for the infrastructure project") which is what now, perhaps a “derivative?”

Item (j) is the crowning jewel... Loan Guarantees... "The terms of a loan guaranteed by AIFA under this Act shall be consistent with the terms set forth in this section for a direct loan, except that the rate on the guaranteed loan and any payment, pre-payment, or refinancing features shall be negotiated between the obligor and the lender, with the consent of the chief executive officer." Basically, item (j) allows previous regulations to be discarded at the CEO's whim. The section specifies that lenders are defined as consistent with the Security Exchange Commission's definition....


Item (k)] uses a crippled sub-item (1) to announce the EXCEPTION in sub-item (2) - namely that "[color=#00b050]Section 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661c(b) shall not apply to a loan or loan guarantee under this Act." - which means that such direct loan obligations as are created by the AIFA are not subject to the availability of new budget authority to cover their costs... in other words the AIFA can, unilaterally upon their own judgement, ADD to the national debt without the prior appropriation of off-setting savings as is required by Federal law of other such direct loan guarantees by the nation. How's that for a deal?


Our ball, our rules


This section states plainly that borrowers will obey AIFA rules (“[color=#4f81bd]Notwithstanding any other provision of law”), and limits consequences for not doing so to the Board's authority to "[color=#4f81bd]take action to cancel unutilized loan amounts, or to accelerate the repayment terms of any outstanding obligation."

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:43 PM

Oversight, on our terms


Perhaps the only section which contains encouraging news (further down) this item narrows the field of oversight in item (a) by making law that the AIFA Board chooses their auditors for the ‘accountability’ of fiscal reporting. This despite the mandates of their own presidentially appointed Special Inspector General, the offices of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Office of Comptroller General of the United States – go figure.

Item (b) (2) mandates that 5 years after their inception the Government Accounting Office will issue a report on AIFA.... it would appear that after that report, it’s all up to the AIFA to report on itself.

Item (c) (2) tells us something I can’t object to on its face, when it comes to keeping the books, sadly for those bankers long-accustomed to ‘freedom’ "The books and records of AIFA shall at all times be open to inspection by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Special Inspector General, and the Comptroller General of the United States"



A fee for the borrower…, which you will pay


In item (a) the task is charged to the CEO to establish fees to cover all the administrative costs to the Federal Government for the operations of AIFA; they may be in the form of an application or transaction fee, or interest rate adjustment; and they may be based on the risk premium associated with the loan or loan guarantee.

Item (b) says AIFA shall annually deposit amounts of fees collected under this section that are not used for the expenses of AIFA as miscellaneous receipts with the Treasury… They codified wiggle room for overcharging? Wherever the bank overcharges, it’s the tax-payer who ends up paying.

So the "given" here is that there may be 'excess charges.' Even though the fees are intended to only cover operational costs. Yet, the CEO has also been compelled in earlier sections to create "credit" fees as well. Remember we are only talking about debt here... debt which will increase the national deficit. So these fees, which will no doubt be passed along within the project “cost”, will serve to make us borrow more... to pay for subsidizing the corporate welfare this act represents.


Our formula for “self-sustainability”… it’s going to cost you…


"[color=#4f81bd]The chief executive officer shall, to the extent possible, take actions consistent with this Act to make AIFA a self-sustaining entity, with administrative costs and Federal credit subsidy costs fully funded by fees and risk premiums on loans and loan guarantees."

It bears mentioning that all or part of the fees and risk premiums will be subsidized via the AIFA account the nation seeded into the entity... and in fact, aside from the profit the board members and senior staff – along with “private partners” get up front, I am doubtful that “self-sufficiency” will be achieved any more than it had been with “other” quasi-governmental entities – none of which have a record they can boast about. Since no funds will be allocated to cover these loan guarantees by the nation, we are vulnerable to the same confidence game that has been prevalent since 1913.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:43 PM

Prepare for the razzle-dazzle… fancy footwork inbound


There is authorized to be appropriated to AIFA to carry out this Act, to make direct loans and loan guarantees under this Act, not more than $10,000,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which amount, not more than $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2013, and not more than $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 may be used for administrative costs of AIFA. Such amount shall earn interest. Not more than 5 percent of such amount shall be used to offset subsidy costs associated with rural infrastructure projects.

Title 2 section 201 (e)[color=#4f81bd] provides that the maximum annual loan guarantees are:

[color=#4f81bd](2) MAXIMUM ANNUAL LOAN AND LOAN GUARANTEE VOLUME- The aggregate amount of direct loans and loan guarantees made by AIFA in any single fiscal year may not exceed--

(A) during the first 2 fiscal years of the operations of AIFA, $10,000,000,000;
(B) during fiscal years 3 through 9 of the operations of AIFA, $20,000,000,000; or
(C) during any fiscal year thereafter, $50,000,000,000.

But now Title 3 section 303 specifies a completely "new" allocation framework.... specifying 'administrative costs" limitations... was it supposed to be this confusing? I suppose it was.

MAXIMUM ANNUAL LOAN AND LOAN GUARANTEE VOLUME- The aggregate amount of direct loans and loan guarantees made by AIFA in any single fiscal year may not exceed--

[color=#4f81bd]“Each of” the first 2 fiscal years (2012 and 2013), not more than $25,000,000,000;

[color=#4f81bd]And $50,000,000,000 in 2014, up to 5% of whatever interest is earned goes to offset “rural subsidy costs.”

I am no economist… but that leaves a lot of room for ‘bonuses and profit’ for anyone but the tax-payers footing the bill.


We write the checks, you cover the bill…

edit on 24-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:44 PM

[color=#4f81bd]“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, approval by the Board of Directors of a Federal credit instrument that uses funds made available under this Act shall impose upon the United States a contractual obligation to fund the Federal credit investment.”

Essentially, whatever check the AIFA writes... the tax-payers are contractually obliged to cover.... nice. Here we have politically-appointed industry-insiders unilaterally deciding just how much debt you and I are in and they are completely immune from any liability for the actions they take toward that end.



Bet you didn’t know we could do this…


[color=#4f81bd](a) In General-Clause (vi) of section 57(a)(5)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986[color=#00b050] is amended[color=#4f81bd]--

(1) by striking ‘January 1, 2011’ in subclause (I) and inserting ‘January 1, 2013’; and
(2) by striking ‘AND 2010’ in the heading and inserting ‘, 2010, 2011, AND 2012’.

[color=#4f81bd](b) Adjusted Current Earnings- Clause (iv) of section 56(g)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986[color=#00b050] is amended[color=#4f81bd]--

(1) by striking ‘January 1, 2011’ in subclause (I) and inserting ‘January 1, 2013’; and
(2) by striking ‘AND 2010’ in the heading and inserting ‘, 2010, 2011, AND 2012’.

[color=#4f81bd](c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 2010."

Another 'gift' from the representatives of the American people to corporate fat-cats ... extended exemption from tax law
... offered via a completely surreptitious means at the tail end of legislation without justifying how it serves the purpose of the bill.

edit on 24-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:44 PM
Now - assuming you have had the stomach to actually digest this layman's analysis of March 2011's new "BUILD ACT”; I congratulate you on your patience and resilience to bureaucratic flummery.

Judging from the comments provided about this act to the public via our political jesters, and tele-prompted-talking-heads... either they haven't read it, didn't understand it, or just don't care that this ACT is a recipe for the increased prosperity of transnational corporations, banks, and political parties on the shoulders of us, our children, and probably theirs as well.

On a tangential note, the comparison of this bank to the Export-Import Bank of the United States “model” is completely appropriate; considering the history of that bank…

Excerpts From the “Criticism” subsection of Wikipedia on the topic of “the Export-Import Bank of the United States:”

“The Bank has come under criticism for allegedly favoring special interests ahead of that of the U.S. taxpayer. These interests include that of heavily subsidized corporations such as Boeing or Enron as well as those of well-connected foreign governments and nationals (such as a 1996 $120 million low-interest loan to the China National Nuclear Power Corporation (CNNP). The majority of loan guarantees over 2007 and 2008 went to companies purchasing Boeing aircraft.

Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner has written that the (Export-Import, or Ex-Im) Bank:

“…epitomizes corporate welfare. It also is a prime example of unaccountability. The agency is independent of any cabinet department, and it hands out loans and loan guarantees basically at its own discretion. Congress typically gives Ex-Im lengthy re-authorizations, thus minimizing congressional oversight. In recent years, Ex-Im was moved off-budget, meaning it funds itself with the repayments from old loans and the fees from new ones. So it’s kind of like Fannie Mae was, before its exposure became real and the taxpayers had to come in and bail it out….”

In 2007, WFAA-TV in Dallas revealed that the Ex-Im Bank had given at least $243 million in fraudulent loans to companies doing business with Mexico, including giving loans to companies with no verifiable address and individuals who were known associates of the Sinaloa and Juarez drug trafficking cartels."

I thank you sincerely for taking the time to consider this matter. I know some associate it with movements of angst within our society; however, I propose that aside from whatever mistakes I have made in my laymen’s analysis, this bill appears to embody a new fiscal tumor metastasizing from the cancer with which our economy has had to contend since 1913.

I suggest that the "quasi-governmental" institution may be the single most corruptable and treasonous creation to ever curse the government our people – it is the economic fulcrum which allows the "elite entitlement" to manifest itself over the labor of the non-corporate American citizens.

Welcome to new “Feddy Rez Jr.”

edit on 24-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:46 PM
This is way too complicated for me to even dip my toes into.

But I saw the section about the bank, and it had better not be another privately owned bank. We have enough corporates with private stock in the system. It just throws more wrenches into the works.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Starchild23
This is way too complicated for me to even dip my toes into.

But I saw the section about the bank, and it had better not be another privately owned bank. We have enough corporates with private stock in the system. It just throws more wrenches into the works.

You're instincts are fairly good.... it is about a new BANK

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:20 PM
B.U.I.L.D Act (Banks United In Looting & Destruction)

Tremendous piece of work Max! though I have just begun reading but let me take a wild guess and propose that this nasty piece of legis-castration is really about selling off all of America's public infrastructure by creating a Federal Authority to manage it all. It might also be used to further bind state and counties to the Federal government by creating a bank that will arrange perpetual debt, one project at a time.

I will be reading it in it's entirety as I am sure this is as important as any bill since the Patriot Act (italicized for emphasis on the verb; Act)

You've done all Americans a great service my friend. Your labor was the work of a true patriot, someone willing to wade through a bible full of legalese to bring out the facts of the matter. That's why most would rather wave a flag and shout "USA USA USA!" as their homage to our country, because it's much easier. We need more citizens like you.

The closer we look the more we find just how poorly they are managing our public affairs; for the cost of just this one bank I believe we could probably rebuild 1,000 bridges.

I'll be back once I've finished.
Awesome work!

ETA: Read it all and I wasn't far off the mark if your analysis is correct. Pretty disturbing how it looks to be accountable but then goes private in 5 years. If we look at what has happened in other countries where transnationals have taken over public infrastructure we will get a glimpse of our future. States are drowning in debt and this will effectively privatize our water systems, roads etc one project at a time. We'll see things like water costing 10X what it did previously (see Bolivia) and toll roads for the rich since they poor won't be able to afford gas or tolls.
If the states default (which I'm sure they're counting on), the ownership will be handed over to private companies.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven and given the state of our infrastructure the vultures look to profit from every worn out bridge, road and pipeline that needs repair. This will probably destroy state road departments and lead to further unemployment while the big corps will ship over thousands of workers from 3 world countries just like they do in the Arab Emirates.
I pray this doesn't just slide through Congress without a fight.

edit on 24-2-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

edit on 24-2-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

new topics

<<   2 >>

log in