U.S. Investment Heroes of 2013: The Companies Betting on America’s Future

For too long, U.S. policymakers have focused narrowly on boosting consumers’ buying power, assuming that the productive end of the economy will take care of itself. Yet the last decade of slow growth shows that debt-driven consumption is not a sustainable strategy for expanding economic opportunity or lifting U.S. living standards. In contrast, a high-growth strategy requires strong investment—private and public—in our nation’s productive and knowledge capacities.

It’s time for progressives to rebalance the consumption-investment equation. Total domestic investment fell drastically during the recession and has yet to fully recover. A big part of the problem is the public sector. With gridlock in Washington and financial troubles at the state and local level, government real spending on productive assets from highways and bridges to computer equipment, net of depreciation, is down by half compared to the average level of the 2000s.

Investment by the private sector is doing better, but taken as a whole still falls way short of what the country needs to generate jobs and growth. As shown in Figure 1, business investment, outside of housing, is still 20 percent below its long-term trend. There are several reasons why private business investment is failing to reach its potential. Globalization, weak demand, deleveraging and a shortage of workers with technical skills all contributed to the investment fall-out and subsequent investment gap. And as PPI has documented elsewhere, the sheer accumulation of regulations over time can discourage capital investment and innovation.

Within this gloomy picture, however, are some bright spots—companies that continue to place big bets on America’s future, creating jobs and raising productivity in the process. Surprisingly, in a world of information overload, identifying these major contributors to the U.S. economy is not an easy task, since most companies do not break out their domestic capital spending. That’s why we undertook our second annual report on “U.S. Investment Heroes,” making a systematic analysis of publicly available information to rank nonfinancial companies by their capital spending in the U.S.

PPI’s ranking of U.S. Investment Heroes for 2013 is once again led by AT&T, which invested almost $20 billion in the U.S. in 2012. The list then follows with Verizon, Exxon, Chevron, Intel and Walmart. Together, we estimate these companies invested almost $75 billion in the U.S. in 2012, an astonishing total almost twice the GDP of Wyoming. Over the last year, these companies have poured capital investment into the deployment of high-speed broadband, oil and natural gas production, and new corporate and retail facilities.

As a general principle such spending provides both direct and indirect benefits to Americans. For example, a variety of studies suggest that investment in fixed and mobile broadband creates jobs. In fact, PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel estimates that since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, the economy has created over 750,000 jobs related to mobile apps.

Indeed, telecommunications and cable companies are a major driver of U.S. investment today, sparking the rise of what we call “the data-driven economy.” The digital transformation of the U.S. economy would not be possible if high-speed fixed and mobile broadband networks were not in place. That’s why encouraging private investment in our nation’s broadband infrastructure is rightly a major priority for the Obama administration. Beyond that, robust private investment in smart devices, sensors, and “big data” analytics is sparking the emergence of the “Internet of Everything,” which could boost productivity and job creation in ‘physical’ industries such as manufacturing and transportation.

Our ranking of U.S. companies investing in America also shows the tremendous role energy—oil and natural gas production and power generation—has on U.S. economic growth. The shale oil and gas boom has turned old assumptions about energy scarcity on their head. It is lowering input costs for U.S. chemical companies and helping to revive U.S. manufacturing. It may also turn the United States into a major energy exporter, while creating jobs at home.

This report is the third in PPI’s “Investment Heroes: Who’s Betting on America’s Future” research series. That so many companies are choosing to invest elsewhere—or not at all—makes it all the more important to recognize those that are placing their bets on America’s future.

Download the memo.

 

PPI Releases New Report on U.S. Energy, Motor Vehicles Attracting Foreign Investors

U.S. Energy, Motor Vehicles Attracting Foreign Investors

WASHINGTON — Seeking to capitalize on America’s shale gas boom, foreign companies are making major investments in the U.S. energy sector, a new PPI study shows. And while foreign investors still see making motor vehicles in the United States as good business, they seem less willing to place their bets on America’s greatly heralded manufacturing renaissance.

These are key findings of “Non-US Investment Heroes: Foreign Companies Betting on America” by PPI Economist Diana G. Carew. In the first study of its kind, Carew identified the top non-US based companies in three key industries – energy, motor vehicles, and industrial manufacturing – by their level of U.S. investment in 2011 and 2012.

In energy, the top company investing in America by their cumulative 2011 and 2012 capital expenditures was BP, followed by Shell, Statoil, and Total.

In the two remaining industries, we could not produce a ranking due to limitations in publicly available financial data. Still, we identified six motor vehicle and industrial manufacturers that had significant U.S. investment in 2011 and 2012 (listed in alphabetical order): BMW, Honda, Robert Bosch, Samsung, ThyssenKrupp, and Volvo. To obtain these results, PPI analyzed publicly available financial statements.

In general, the report found that foreign direct investment in the United States is still well below its pre-recession high of $310 billion. “We need investment from overseas to propel the U.S. economy, but we continue to be stuck in an investment drought,” Carew says.

However, as Carew notes, a paucity of good data on investment from many non-U.S. based companies, particularly those outside of the energy sector, presents a challenge for designing effective U.S. investment policy.

This report is part of our “Investment Heroes” series, and follows from our 2012 report “U.S. Investment Heroes: Who’s Betting on America’s Future?”

Non-US Investment Heroes: Foreign Companies Betting on America

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)—investment in the United States by foreign-based companies—has yet to recover to pre-recessionary levels. In 2011, FDI remained 25 percent below 2008 levels, and preliminary 2012 figures suggest an even further drop.

Indeed, almost 6 years after the Great Recession began, the United States continues to wallow in an investment drought. Such weak investment—both from U.S. and non-U.S. based companies—is almost certainly a key factor behind today’s slow-growth economy.

Investment is a critical part of any high-growth strategy. It is the building block for innovation and economic growth. Investment that increases U.S. production— of goods, services and data—creates high-skill, globally competitive jobs and raises incomes.

This report highlights several important facts about foreign investment that shed light on sectors of the U.S. economy. First, energy is one of the fastest growing areas for foreign investment in America, just as it is for U.S.-based company investment. Official data shows foreign direct investment in “petroleum”—oil and gas extraction, refining, and distribution—more than doubled from 2008 to 2011.

Second, our research shows the United States continues to be an important platform for non-U.S. motor vehicle manufacturers. Moderate investment by non-U.S. motor vehicle manufacturers to upgrade and expand existing production lines show the U.S. market continues to be an important part of their business model.

Third, relatively low investment by non-U.S. industrial manufacturers suggests the greatly heralded manufacturing renaissance may not be as robust as some believe. Our research shows companies in this sector engaged in relatively little U.S. investment activity, and in some cases previous U.S. investments were unsuccessful. Such lackluster investment should be considered by policymakers on federal and state levels designing pro-investment growth strategies that target manufacturing.

Finally, a lack of good data on investment from many non-U.S. based companies, particularly those outside of the energy sector, presents a challenge for designing effective U.S. investment policy. Not having access to quality information on the U.S. activities of large non-U.S. companies makes it difficult to why certain companies are investing while others are not.

For this report, PPI considered three categories of investment: energy, motor vehicle, and non-motor vehicle industrial manufacturing. We chose these categories because of their importance to facilitating broader growth in the U.S. economy. We calculated the U.S. capital expenditures for companies in each category in 2011 and 2012, using publicly available financial reports.

This report is part of our “Investment Heroes” series, and follows from our 2012 report “U.S. Investment Heroes: Who’s Betting on America’s Future?” that ranked U.S.-based companies by their 2011 U.S. capital expenditures.

Download policy brief.

Get Real on Global Warming

President Obama came to office with ambitious plans to combat global warming and galvanize clean energy development. Then he ran smack into two brick walls: a weak economy and Republican hostility to science.

So Obama last week issued a new “climate action plan” aimed at bypassing GOP obstructionists in Congress, relying instead on regulatory steps the administration can take on its own. Expect conservatives to squawk loudly about “job-killing regulation,” but remember it’s their intransigence that’s ruled out what the country really needs: a market-based approach that uses a carbon tax or cap to allocate the costs of carbon reduction efficiently and drive private investment toward cleaner energy.

The president’s grab bag of things he can do by executive order may be the second-best option, but it’s a whole lot better than nothing. Democrats, however, have blind spots of their own, and one of them is nuclear power. It doesn’t even rate a mention until page 18 of the 21-page plan, where there’s some anodyne language restating Obama’s support for “safe and secure use of nuclear power.” Continue reading “Get Real on Global Warming”

Regulatory Improvement Commission: A Politically-Viable Approach to U.S. Regulatory Reform

The natural accumulation of federal regulations over time imposes an unintended but significant cost to businesses and to economic growth. However, no effective process currently exists for retrospectively improving or removing regulations. This paper first puts forward three explanations for how regulatory accumulation itself imposes an economic burden, and how this burden has historically been addressed with little result. We then propose the creation of an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC) to reduce regulatory accumulation. We conclude by explaining why the RIC is the most effective and politically-viable approach.

A well-functioning regulatory system is an essential part of a high-growth economy. Regulations drive business decisions, such as where to locate production and where to invest in the local workforce. They provide guidelines that keep the air clean, protect consumers, and ensure worker safety. Smart regulations enable the capital markets to function properly, financing the trades, contracts, and insurance that allows businesses to survive and grow.

A successful high-growth strategy requires a regulatory system that balances innovation and growth with consumer well-being. A regulatory structure that is too prescriptive could restrict investment in job-creating innovation if companies are overwhelmed by costly rules, hampering potential economic growth. On the other hand, a regulatory structure that is too relaxed may threaten the environment or unnecessarily place consumers at risk.

A regulatory system that achieves this balance must include a mechanism for addressing regulatory accumulation—what we define as the natural buildup of regulations over time.

Regulatory accumulation is both a process and an outcome of our reactive regulatory structure. Over time regulations naturally accumulate and layer on top of existing rules, resulting in a maze of duplicative and outdated rules companies must comply with.

However, our current regulatory system has no effective process for addressing regulatory accumulation. Every president since Jimmy Carter has mandated self-evaluation by regulatory agencies, but for various reasons this approach has been met with limited success.

In this paper we propose the creation of an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC), to be authorized by Congress on an ongoing basis. The RIC will review regulations as submitted by the public and present a recommendation to Congress for an up or down vote. It will have a simple, streamlined process and be completely transparent. Most importantly, it will review regulations en masse in a way that is politically viable.

Download “205.2013-Mandel-Carew_Regulatory-Improvement-Commission_A-Politically-Viable-Approach-to-US-Regulatory-Reform”

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Natural Gas Vehicles: Driving America to a More Prosperous, Secure and Sustainable Future

There has been a sea change in public attitudes toward natural gas. Not so long ago natural gas was widely viewed as a “bridge fuel” to a future of clean, renewable energy. Now, amid a shale gas boom, many energy analysts regard it as a “foundation fuel” that can power America’s economy in efficient, affordable and environmentally responsible ways for the rest of this century, and possibly beyond.

It is by far the cleanest fossil fuel. Gas produces 50 percent less CO2 than coal2 and 30 percent less CO2 than oil, while also producing significantly less sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and harmful particulate matter. The more we burn natural gas in the place of oil or coal the less we put greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

Natural gas is also highly efficient. When used directly in America’s homes and businesses, natural gas loses just 8 percent of its useable energy in its journey from the point-of-origin (wellhead) to the point-of-use (burner tip). By contrast, electricity loses approximately 68 percent of its useable energy during the same journey from origin to use.

Thanks to the huge increase in natural gas now being produced from shale rock formations, natural gas is becoming even more abundant. America is now the largest producer of natural gas in the world, with an estimated future supply (reserves plus resources) of approximately 2,170 trillion cubic feet. That’s enough to meet America’s energy needs for more than 85 years. These estimates are based just on current technology. As new production technologies are
developed, this resource base will only grow.

Because natural gas is abundant domestically, it is very affordable. In 2012, oil cost about $15 per MMBtu (million British thermal units) on average, while natural gas cost less than $4 per MMBtu.5 In recent years, natural gas consumers have literally saved millions of dollars on their energy bills. With all of this going for it, more and more American consumers are turning to natural gas for their home heating, water heating, cooking and other energy needs.

Download the entire policy memo.

State of the Union 2013: Right Direction, Wrong Speed

President Obama got off on the right foot in last night’s State of the Union address by putting America’s economic revival at the center of his second-term agenda. That was reassuring, since his second inaugural strangely neglected this crucial subject.

There’s no more urgent national challenge than building new economic foundations for shared prosperity. More than anything else, what happens to the U.S. economy over the next four years will decisively shape history’s judgment of Barack Obama’s presidency.

Last night, the president certainly got the goal right. But it’s fair to ask whether the modest means he proposed are adequate to the task.

On the plus side, the president’s endorsement of corporate tax reform was welcome. Eliminating tax loopholes and subsidies will make for better investment decisions, and bringing down the corporate rate will make doing business in the United States more attractive. We also need to overhaul a worldwide tax system that encourages companies to offshore activities and leaves profits stranded abroad.

Continue reading “State of the Union 2013: Right Direction, Wrong Speed”

Some Good News That Obama Should Be Touting

Will Marshall compiled four positive economic stories for Real Clear Politics that President Obama should be making better use of in his campaign for re-election. From farming to exports there are positive signs in the economy according to Marshall.

Despite a string of doleful job and sales reports, there are signs that America is starting to get its productive mojo working again. The good news can’t come fast enough for President Obama, who needs some economic success stories he can point to.

So, at the risk of diverting readers from the cosmically important question of when, exactly, Mitt Romney stopped running Bain Capital, let’s examine four pinpricks of light that have begun to penetrate the economic gloom:

First, check out America’s phenomenally productive farmers; Monday’s Washington Post notes that the agriculture sector last year sold $136 billion worth of goods abroad, boosting farm income to a record $98 billion. When it comes to high quality and affordable food, America is still number one in the world.

But, in a perfect example of the disjuncture between what’s happening in the real world and Washington’s thralldom to entrenched interests, Congress is cooking up new justifications for costly federal subsidies for the thriving agricultural sector. The culprits include supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans, who added callousness to hypocrisy by also voting to slash food stamps for poor families.

Read the entire article HERE

Telecom and oil companies top ‘Investment Heroes’ list

The Washington Post covers Diana Carew’s and Michael Mandel’s Investment Heroes paper, focusing on the strong telecoms and energy presence amongst the leading companies.

AT&T, Exxon Mobil and Wal-Mart are leaders among a top 25 list of corporations still investing within U.S. borders, according to a new study from a progressive think tank.

These “Investment Heroes,” according to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), continue to invest domestically in buildings, equipment and software — something most companies have slowed or stopped throughout the lackluster economic recovery. However, telecom and energy companies, which are ubiquitous on the list, are still building broadband infrastructure to keep up with demand and are investing in the discovery of new sources of oil and gas.

The report’s authors, PPI economists Diana Carew and Michael Mandel, have no misconceptions that these companies are doing everything right — they are often criticized for environmental issues, privacy concerns and low tax rates, among other things — but want to point out the positive impact these companies are having when it comes to creating jobs and growth through their domestic investment.

Read the full story here.

Producing Shale Gas: How Industry Can Lead with Best Practice

Advances in drilling and recovery technologies for shale gas have reshaped our assumptions about America’s natural gas resources and our future energy options. Expanded development of shale gas and its associated liquids offer the potential for turning energy scarcity into plenty, fostering a renaissance in our petrochemical and manufacturing sectors, and offering a cleaner option for power generation.

If shale gas production realizes its potential of providing reliable supplies of natural gas for decades at affordable prices, it will lower utility bills for households and, by driving down feedstock and production costs, boost American manufacturing. In addition, greater use of natural gas in electricity generation is already providing environmental and climate benefits as a cleaner, market-friendly substitute for coal and as a complement to intermittent renewable resources like wind and solar.

In his 2012 State of the Union address, President Obama gave his strongest endorsement yet to shale gas. “The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy,” he said, adding that his administration “will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

But as the president’s remarks suggest, safety, and sustainability are key. For as gas production rises, so too does controversy over the environmental impact of shale gas development. Amid claims and counterclaims about its dangers from environmentalists and gas producers, hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) has be-come a household word. The public is being bombarded with negative images of shale production, from media reports of an earthquake in Ohio attributed to hydraulic fracturing, to flaming water faucets in the movie Gasland.

In response to real and imagined dangers, there is growing political pressure to regulate production at both the state and federal levels. Some states, including New York, Maryland, and New Jersey, already have limited shale development. Environmental concerns also have inspired proposed legislation in Congress and prompted federal agencies to take tentative steps toward new regulations.

Download the entire brief.

When Paperwork Attacks! Five Ideas for Smarter Government

In the minds of many Americans, “government” is synonymous with “red tape,” “bureaucracy” and “paperwork.”

And no wonder.

According to the government’s own estimates, American people and businesses collectively spent 8.8 billion hours dealing with federal paperwork requirements in 2010. That’s equal to nearly 367 million days and more than one million years.And while this figure is down from 2009, it’s still 1.4 billion hours more than what people and companies spent on government paperwork in 2000.

Make no mistake: Paperwork is absolutely essential to the basic functions of government. It ensures compliance with health and safety regulations and the proper collection of taxes. It’s the only way for the government to gather information about its citizens and determine who is eligible for such crucial programs as Medicare and Social Security. It’s also an important avenue for Americans to get more information about the services and benefits government provides. As a consequence, policymakers should avoid the “meat cleaver” approach to reducing paperwork.

Nevertheless, there’s a difference between “smart” paperwork (paperwork that is as painless and efficient as possible) and plain old red tape. And too much of the latter still exists. The amount of time demanded from companies and citizens for paperwork compliance should be as precious to the government as the tax dollars it collects.

Modern technology can provide more effective, efficient and tree-friendly means for government to communicate with citizens or for companies to comply with regulatory requirements. As an example, allowing the “e-delivery” of just some annual retirement plan documents would conservatively save as much as $60 million in printing costs a year, in addition to 11,600 trees.

Fortunately, the Obama administration recognizes the problems posed by burdensome paperwork, and in January 2011, the president issued an executive order aimed at reviewing and pruning paperwork requirements.

To supplement that effort, this memo offers up five ideas for reforming paperwork—not only to save work and paper, but to improve the effectiveness of how government, people and companies interact with each other so that the public benefits.

Five ideas for a more modern government with less paper and less hassle:

  1. Removing obstacles to small business success. Waive the first year of quarterly tax filing requirements for start-ups and small businesses.
  2. Helping savers make better retirement decisions. Allow default e-delivery of 401(k) statements and retirement plan documents.
  3. Helping taxpayers understand their benefits. Resume delivery of Social Security Statements by email and add a “Medicare Statement.”
  4. Facilitating job creation. Fast-track paperwork reduction efforts with the best potential for job creation and require estimates of economic impact.
  5. Building a more responsive government. Create a “silver scissors” challenge to solicit and reward citizens’ ideas for creative (and effective) paperwork reduction strategies.

Read the entire brief.

Ending the Nuclear Drought

Vogtle Nuclear Plant

America’s long nuclear energy drought is officially over. For the first time in 33 years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved a construction and operating license for a new nuclear reactor in the United States – actually two of them to expand Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle generating facility in Georgia.

This is good news for U.S. electricity consumers, companies, and workers. Since 1979, the last time NRC approved a construction permit, U.S. electricity use has risen more than 80 percent. An expansion of nuclear power – which has provided about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity for decades – shows that the United States is serious about meeting growing energy demand without pumping more carbon into the atmosphere. At a time when political support for some kind of carbon cap or tax has seemingly collapsed, that’s an important sign that Americans aren’t giving up on protecting the Earth’s climate.

The two reactors will generate thousands of badly needed construction and operating jobs. Their larger significance, however, may lie in symbolizing America’s commitment to rebuilding its productive base. In effect, the NRC’s action puts America back in the nuclear energy business, and not a moment too soon. Around the world, some 160 new nuclear reactors have either been ordered or are planned to be operational by 2030, according to the World Nuclear Organization. We need to rebuild our nuclear industrial infrastructure to be able to compete in the fast-growing global market for nuclear energy.

The NRC’s decision comes on the heels of another important development which bodes well for America’s “nuclear renaissance.” Last month, President Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) issued its final report. It offers a new strategy for breaking the impasse on nuclear waste disposal, which has tied politicians in knots over the proposed Yucca Mountain facility for decades. Headed by Democrat Lee Hamilton and Republican Brent Scowcroft, the BRC calls for a resumption of the search for a second geological storage site, which it says we will need regardless of Yucca’s fate.

Nuclear energy still faces significant hurdles, especially the enormous upfront costs of siting and building a generating plant. But if the NRC can follow today’s action with a commitment to speeding up the approval process, some of those costs could be mitigated. In any case, it’s critical for the United States to recapture its technological leadership in energy, which includes the civilian nuclear power industry that was first invented here.

Photo Credit: Blatant World

Nuclear Risk in Perspective: Making Fact-Based Energy Choices

March 11, 2011 was a day of calamity the Japanese people will never forget. According to the National Police Agency of Japanthe Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami left 15,841 dead, 5,890 injured and 3,490 people missing (as of December, 2011). Mother Nature’s freakish, one-two punch also triggered the partial meltdowns of four reactors in the Fukushima Daaichi complex, one of the worst commercial nuclear power plant disasters in history.

The Fukushima incident has stoked nuclear dread around the world and led some to conclude that nuclear power is too risky. Perhaps the most dramatic shift in public attitudes has been in Germany, where a conservative-led government recently unveiled a plan to close down all the country’s nuclear power plants by 2022.

Americans, however, should not endorse this knee-jerk anti-nuclear policy. For the foreseeable future, nuclear power will remain a vital part of a balanced and realistic national energy portfolio. Moreover, as champions of reason and science, U.S. progressives have a responsibility to avoid panicky overreactions and instead undertake a clear-eyed assessment of the actual risks of nuclear energy.

Generating electricity—like getting out of bed in the morning, or any other human activity—carries inherent risks. That’s true regardless of the fuel used to generate power. Instead of carefully weighing and comparing such risks, however, some environmental activists have tried to pose a false choice between “clean” and presumably safe renewable fuels like wind, solar and geothermal energy, and “dirty” fossil fuels or allegedly “unsafe” nuclear power. This dichotomy has nothing to do with science.

No sensible person is against renewable energy. But it will probably be a long time—likely decades, not years—before such sources have a realistic prospect of providing the base load needs of our national economy, let alone meeting the growing requirements of the entire globe. The Obama administration takes a more realistic approach in including nuclear energy along with other non-carbon emitting sources in its “Clean Energy Standard.” To understand why this is the case, we first need to review a few of the often overlooked, but important subtleties of electrical power generation.

Download the memo.

Crowd Control: The Need for a Spectrum Management Mitigation Fund

Whether it’s 4G cell phones, light-as-a-feather laptops or the latest tablet, Americans are enjoying a wireless revolution. In 2010, Americans typed, tapped, texted, and called on an estimated 300 million mobile devices.

But all this increased connectivity is taking a toll on the nation’s increasingly crowded airwaves. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) warns of a “spectrum crunch” that could hit as early as 2013, given how quickly wireless traffic is growing.

Innovative companies are devising new ways to maximize spectrum efficiency so more users can take up less space. But while these advances deserve strong support, they’re also not cost-free. In some cases, existing “legacy” users must retrofit older and less efficient technologies to adjust to these new uses.

This brief proposes a “spectrum management mitigation fund” to help legacy users defray the inadvertent costs of adapting to innovations in the marketplace. This fund would involve no new federal money and instead would be financed from a portion of revenues from “voluntary incentive auctions”—a mechanism endorsed by the FCC to encourage more efficient spectrum allocation between current and prospective licensees.

Creating the fund would reconcile two goals: it would both encourage much-needed innovation while also acknowledging the legitimate concerns of users with older technologies. Moreover, it would obviate the politicization of spectrum management issues currently occurring in part due to the absence of a mitigation mechanism. For example, this fund could help re-solve the current controversy between the legacy GPS community and the wireless broadband start-up LightSquared—it could partially compensate legacy GPS users for the cost of retrofitting existing devices, thereby clearing the path for LightSquared to deploy its network.

With the benefits of spectrum innovation too great pass up, this fund could be an important next step to ensure Americans enjoy the next generation and beyond of new wireless technologies.

Read the entire report.

Sperling on Deferred Maintenance

Gene SperlingPresident Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan includes some constructive – literally – provisions for upgrading America’s economic infrastructure. These shouldn’t be controversial: Who could be against putting people to work rebuilding the rickety foundations of U.S. productivity and competitiveness?

Well, Republicans, that’s who. They have dismissed the president’s call for $50 billion in new infrastructure spending as nothing more than another jolt of fiscal “stimulus” masquerading as investment.

It’s hard to imagine a more myopic example of the right’s determination to impose premature austerity on our frail economy. From Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt to Eisenhower, the Republicans were once a party dedicated to internal nation building. Today’s GOP is gripped by a raging anti-government fever which fails to draw elementary distinctions between consumption and investment, viewing all public spending as equally wasteful.

But as the White House’s Gene Sperling said yesterday, Republicans can’t claim credit for fiscal discipline by blocking long overdue repairs of in the nation’s transport, energy and water systems. There’s nothing fiscally responsible about “deferring maintenance” on the U.S. economy.

Sperling, chairman of the president’s National Economic Council, spoke at a PPI forum on Capitol Hill on “Infrastructure and Jobs: A Productive Foundation for Economic Growth.” Other featured speakers included Sen. Mark Warner, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Dan DiMicco, CEO of Nucor Corporation, Daryl Dulaney, CEO of Siemens Industry and Ed Smith, CEO of Ullico Inc., a consortium of union pension funds.

Fiscal prudence means foregoing consumption of things you’d like but could do without if you can’t afford them – a cable TV package, in Sperling’s example. But if a water pipe breaks in your home, deferring maintenance can only lead to greater damage and higher repair costs down the road.

As speaker after speaker emphasized during yesterday’s forum, that’s precisely what’s happening to the U.S. economy. Thanks to a generation of underinvestment in roads, bridges, waterways, power grids, ports and railways, the United States faces a $2 trillion repair bill. Our inadequate, worn-out infrastructure costs us time and money, lowering the productivity of workers and firms, and discouraging capital investment in the U.S. economy.

Deficient infrastructure, Dulaney noted, has forced Siemens to build its own rail spurs to get goods to market. That’s something smaller companies can’t afford to do. They will go to countries – like China, India and Brazil – that are investing heavily in building world-class infrastructure.

As Nucor’s DiMicco noted, a large-scale U.S. infrastructure initiative would create lots of jobs while also abetting the revival of manufacturing in America. He urged the Obama administration to think bigger, noting that a $500 billion annual investment in infrastructure (much of the new money would come from private sources rather than government) could generate 15 million jobs.

The enormous opportunities to deploy more private capital were echoed from financial leaders in New York, including Jane Garvey, the North American chairman of Meridiam Infrastructure, a private equity fund specializing in infrastructure investment. Garvey warned that what investors need from government programs is more transparent and consistent decision making, based on clear, merit-based criteria, and noted that an independent national infrastructure bank would be the best way to achieve this. Bryan Grote, former head of the Department of Transportation’s TIFIA financing program, which many describe as a forerunner of the bank approach, added that having a dedicated staff of experts in an independent bank is the key to achieving the more rational, predictable project selection that investors need to see to view any government program as a credible partner.

Tom Osborne, the head of Americas Infrastructure at UBS Investment Bank, agreed that an independent infrastructure bank like the version proposed by Senators Kerry, Hutchison and Warner, would empower private investors to fund more projects. And contrary to arguments that a national bank would centralize more funding decisions in Washington, Osborne explained that states and local governments would also be more empowered by the bank to pursue new projects with flexible financing options, knowing that the bank will evaluate projects based on its economics, not on the politics of the next election cycle.

Adding urgency to the infrastructure push was Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s warning this week that the recovery is “close to faltering.” Unlike short-term stimulus spending, money invested in modernizing infrastructure would create lasting jobs by expanding our economy’s productive base.

Warning that America stands on the precipice of a “double dip” recession, Sperling said it would be “inexcusable” for Congress to fail to act on the president’s job plan. He cited estimates by independent economic experts that the plan would boost GDP growth in 2012 from 2.4 to 4.2 percent, and generate over three million more jobs.

The political battle over Obama’s jobs plan centers on how it’s paid for. Senate Democrats have proposed a surtax on millionaires. Unlike tax hikes in general, this idea is popular, and Democrats clearly hope to use it to crack the GOP’s monolithic opposition to raising taxes.

However that battle ends, Congress must salvage the plan’s infrastructure provisions, including its call for an independent infrastructure bank.

Gas vs. Gasoline

America has a serious oil deficit. We consume almost three times as much oil as we produce. As a result, we send more than $250 billion a year offshore (mostly to our enemies and other bad guys) to import oil so we can keep our trains, planes, and automobiles running.

On the other hand, America now has a huge surplus of natural gas, enough to last us for 100 years or more. If we replaced the oil we import with domestic gas, we could end our energy dependence and stop enriching U.S. adversaries. But rather than convert from oil to gas, plans are afoot to export the gas!

The economics of importing oil and exporting gas make no sense. We currently pay about $100 to import a barrel of oil. We are exporting natural gas at a price that has the energy equivalence of about $25 a barrel. That’s right, we are buying energy as oil for $100, selling the same amount of energy as gas for $25.

Buying high and selling low – this is what passes for national energy policy today. Our leaders should be embarrassed.

In addition to the economics, the strategic implications of converting from oil to gas are huge.

About two-thirds of the oil we use is for transportation. Converting our transportation fleet to natural gas would almost eliminate the need to import oil. Our trade deficit would be cut in half, petro-despots would be deprived of their largest revenue source, and our economy would get a $250 billion shot in the arm – every year.

So why aren’t we doing it? Converting gasoline and diesel engines to gas is relatively easy and very safe. The challenge is the infrastructure – a national network of filling stations that need to be in place before people will convert their cars and trucks to gas. Building that infrastructure requires such a huge effort and coordination among so many actors that it is unlikely that the private sector can or will make the switch by itself. Among other things, investors will worry that OPEC will defensively collapse the price of oil as they did in the ’70s. Given these market realities, the only way this switch can possibly happen will be if the government steps up to catalyze and help underwrite the effort. 150 years ago the government made a similar commitment to enable the trans-continental railroad – which ushered in America’s great industrial expansion. Converting to natural gas could bring about a similar economic boom.

Installing the required new fueling infrastructure for gas-propelled vehicles would be a tremendous generator of new jobs. There are few other investments the nation could make with as large a payoff across so many areas of national concern.

For those interested in the math:

One barrel of oil = about 5.6 million BTU. One Mcf of natural gas = about 1.02 million BTU. (The actual energy content varies slightly depending on the grade of the oil or gas. These are industry averages.)

Energy equivalence: The BTUs in 1 bbl. oil = The BTUs in 5.6 Mcf natural gas.

1 bbl oil costs $96.75 and the same amount of energy in gas costs $25.59 (5.6Mcf x $4.57),

The energy cost ratio between oil and gas is roughly 4 ($100/$25).

That means we’re paying 4 times as much for an oil BTU as we get when we sell a gas BTU.

It also means that once we have completed the conversion, operating on gas instead of gasoline will reduce our transportation energy costs by almost 75 percent.

Photo Credit: Arimoore