Shortly after President Obama signed the healthcare reform legislation into law, several states have filed lawsuits because the new Medicaid requirements will potentially bust their budgets.  So, what does this have to do with Infrastructure?

To begin with, anything that strains the state or municipal budget will limit their ability to fund new projects.  That’s not good news.  But, there is another tie in here that will severely limit localities access to capital.

As I mentioned a few days ago, Florida suspended its issuance of Build America Bonds (BAB) because of the potential that the IRS would reduce their subsidy amount by any amounts owned from other programs.  The new healthcare reform will significantly increase the costs to the states for Medicaid expenses.  If they are unable to cover the increased costs, the IRS will start taking from their BAB subsidy to get whole.  That puts even more pressure on the states and compounds the issue.  Florida estimates that the new healthcare reform law will add $1.6 billion of Medicaid expenses and force them to hire an additional 1,000 employees.  That’s $1.6 billion that they won’t have available to build schools, maintain roads, or repay bonds.

In a time when the states and municipalities are being hit financially as hard as ever, I struggle to understand the rational behind increasing the burden on them.  Maybe someone can explain it to me…

Bloomberg ran an article (see link here) this week about how the state of Florida has temporarily suspended the issuance of Build America Bonds due to a potential glitch in the refunding mechanism.  For those that aren’t as fmailiar with the Build America Bonds, or BABs as they are known, they are a product of the ARRA Stimulus legislation and represent the fastest growing segment of the $2.8 trillion municipal debt market.  The BABs are unique in that they are issued as taxable bonds with taxable equivalent yields, yet the issuing locality receives a refund from the IRS equal to 35% of the interest costs.  This, effectively, makes the cost to the issuer on par with tax free options.

Florida, however, has some concerns about how that 35% subsidy will be paid and has put its $255 million upcoming issuance on hold.  In a recent call with the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS reiterated that any subsidy due to the locality will be reduced by any amount that the issuer owes the federal government for other programs, including Medicare.  This is not a new provision of the BABs and has been a condition since their inception.  However, many of the localities are just now catching on to the fact that they may not get the full subsidy they have been expecting.

This becomes especially relevant as Congress seeks to pass the Healthcare Reform that could dramatically increase an issuers payments to the federal government for Medicare and similar type programs.  Should an issuer not be able to make its Medicare payments, the IRS will still get “theirs” through the BAB subsidy, leaving the locality in a death spiral of interest obligations.

According to the article, the largest issuer of BABs, California, is aware of the IRS claw-back provision and is continue to utilize BABs as a viable funding source.  It will be very interesting to see how many other states join Florida in taking a wait and see attitude.