Desperately reaching for a new WIFIA ‘narrative’….
There’s a lot, lot going on in the US and in the world, not much of it good. Even within the narrow and relatively calm confines of upcoming debates on the WH FY27 Budget proposal and WIFIA reauthorization, the stressed-out zeitgeist means there’s likely to be contentious points raised and awkward questions asked. Standard-strength ‘narrative’ camouflage and obfuscation might not cut it this time. What to do?
You go ‘full narrative’.
Just disconnect from reality altogether and defend the status quo WIFIA Program and more (pointless) funding for it with outright lies. And not ordinary, everyday political lies, but extreme, almost ridiculous, statements that are hard to counter in rational discussion because opponents are left speechless. Here’s a simple example:
“Proposed WIFIA Cuts Will Cause Massive Unemployment and the Failure of Critical Water Infrastructure.”
But there are more subtle variations to address specific criticisms. If asked about the Program’s failure to comply with OMB Circular A-129’s additionality requirements, you can confidently state:
“To Protect the American Taxpayer, WIFIA Only Lends Money to Highly Rated Water Systems That Don’t Need It.”
WIFIA’s gigantic mandatory spending is a bit tricker — $3.1b in losses is hard to hide, even these days. There are two tactics. The first is to claim that the losses are meaningless numbers cooked up by malign Deep State nerds:
“WIFIA’s Mandatory Spending is an Arcane Accounting Adjustment, Not Relevant to Hardworking American Taxpayers.”
Second, and much better for your purposes of ending the debate and continuing the grift, is to put a positive and strangely plausible spin on the whole thing:
“Every $1 in WIFIA Funding Unlocks More Than $90 in Federal Spending.”
How does anyone even begin to answer that? You know, after they stop laughing?
In case other water sector stakeholders, with actually justified claims for scarce federal support, try to sneak in some WIFIA amendments to reform the Program, expand its capabilities and restore its originally intended statutory eligibility, a haughty dismissal might be effective:
“WIFIA Amendments Aren’t Necessary and Will Result in Higher Risk and Cost for American Taxpayers.”
Still, it’s possible that more persistent questioners might go so far as to bring up what WIFIA specifically ‘accomplishes’ and note that it appears to primarily involve ‘free’ interest rate options to highly rated water systems. This is dangerous — dishing out financial options does not sound like something an infrastructure loan program should be doing. To hard-working American taxpayers, it sounds like ‘crooked Wall Street shit’. For your critics, the soundbites write themselves — e.g., “EPA Program Delivers Billions in Financial Options to Insiders”. It’s hard to derail interest in a topic that might resonate with widespread political and economic discontent because it has its own narrative power.
You’ll need to bring in the children:
“Without WIFIA’s Free Interest Rate Options, Children in Silicon Valley Would Be Dying of Thirst!”
Perhaps this seems a bit extreme? It is often said that ‘you never go full narrative’. But to be honest, WIFIA’s current narratives are already so disconnected from reality that few people would notice the difference.