NY Times Columnist in the Bag for H.R. 2521

Today on the NY Times website, a column by Op_Ed Columnist Bob Herbert was posted. This column is a superficial puff-piece designed to garner support for H.R. 2521. Read the complete article here.

Interestingly, Mr. Herbert's rationale for supporting H.R. 2521 is the loss of jobs during this recession and the poor prospects for a rapid recovery. Mr. Herbert refers to this in dire terms such as:

"catastrophic job losses of this recession"

and

"disastrous beyond belief"

as well as

"ominous long-term implications for American families"

and the obligatory running down of our common country

"America has become self-destructively shortsighted in recent decades... a nation that is speeding toward second-class status on a range of important fronts... We can’t put our people to work. We can’t educate the young. We can’t keep the infrastructure in good repair. It’s hard to believe that this nation could be so dysfunctional at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. It’s tragic."

None of which is accurate nor reason to violate the constitution.
This isn't the first time Mr. Herbert has puffed this government agency masqueraded as a "Bank". Read his column of February 23rd, 2009 here. I found it interesting that Mr. Herbert recognized the deficiency of President Obama's stimulus package. It is unfathomable to me how Mr. Herbert used that error in judgment to reach the following conclusion:

"You might ask where that money would come from. Great question. How about an infrastructure bank?
The current economic crisis is the perfect time to decide that we need to change some of the tired old ways of doing the people’s business. Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut has offered a bill that would create an infrastructure bank. It would be a bipartisan entity that would streamline the process of reviewing and authorizing major projects. It would provide federal investment capital for approved projects and use that money to leverage private investment."

Of course, the text of S. 1926 makes it clear that no private investment would be involved. Rather, the bill would create a committee that would borrow money from private investment markets (money that must be paid back by the taxpayers; i.e. you and me) and use it to supplement local and state government funding. Referring to this unconstitutional government agency as a "public private partnership" strains credulity.
This blogger wonders if Mr. Herbert has actually read the proposed legislation.