An idea for how to spur investment in new job opportunities has been floating around the world of financial and political analysis: could the money coming in as banks repay their TARP bailout loans be devoted to infrastructure development in a way that creates tens or even hundreds of thousands of jobs?

Early this year, in the “report card” on America’s infrastructure, top engineers graded key infrastructure across the country, and found there’s a $2.2 trillion need just to bring existing infrastructure up to date. That includes routine maintenance that has not been done, bringing bridges and buildings up to code, repairing highways, preventing energy “runoff” and upgrading waste treatment facilities.

There may not be $2.2 trillion just lying around waiting to be invested, but the TARP program to save the nation’s banks has stabilized many of them and may now yield not only full repayment, but some extra revenue as well. That money could be devoted to new infrastructure projects, sending funds directly to communities in need of investment and job creation, incentivizing the private sector and banks.

The nature of infrastructure, like the vital systems that maintain an organism’s vital functions, is that those costs will be paid one way or another, and the cost of waiting to make the investment is ultimately higher, because there are corrosive costs due to inaction and failing infrastructure, then the ultimate investment to fix the problem.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is not truly a “stimulus”, but a phased-in economic reform and recovery plan. It aims to help states and communities rebuild for the 21st century, and does so by incentivizing investment in new industries, like renewable energy, the smart power grid and zero-combustion cars.

The Report Card for America’s Infrastructure offers a series of key approaches that could help solve the nationwide infrastructure crisis. First is for the federal government to lead with a strong national vision, and investment choices that point the way toward a more reasoned future:

During the 20th Century, the federal government led the way in building our nation’s greatest infrastructure systems from the New Deal programs to the Interstate Highway System and the Clean Water Act. Since that time, federal leadership has decreased, and the condition of the nation’s infrastructure suffered. Currently most infrastructure investment decisions are made without the benefit of a national vision. That strong national vision must originate with strong federal leadership and be shared by all levels of government and the private sector Without a strong national vision, infrastructure will continue to deteriorate.

Resilience and sustainability are also key factors: planning for infrastructure redevelopment without planning to work within the best practices science and technology can afford us for not overusing resources and not interfering with vital natural services that human activity can’t mimic or replace (like forest-watershed containment). Energy especially is a key area where sustainability is a necessary part of planning; carbon emissions have become a danger to the human habitat, and technology is rapidly advancing on clean resources that can out-perform the old carbon-based fuels.

The plan also proposes federal, regional and state-wide strategies for infrastructure redevelopment. Interstate rail networks could be one example. The ARRA is already devoting an unprecedented amount of money to 10 high-speed rail regions across the country, but new funding for related projects could help upgrade the transportation infrastructure in a way that’s sustainable, convenient and conducive to new opportunities for investment and job creation.

Planning for life cycle costs is a key factor in how new infrastructure investment works over the long term:

As infrastructure is built or rehabilitated, life-cycle cost analysis should be performed for all infrastructure systems to account for initial construction, operation, maintenance, environmental, safety and other costs reasonably anticipated during the life of the project, such as recovery after disruption from natural or manmade hazards. Additionally, owners of the infrastructure should be required to perform ongoing evaluations and maintenance to keep the system functioning at a safe and satisfactory level. Life-cycle cost analysis, ongoing maintenance, and planned renewal will result in more sustainable and resilient infrastructure systems and ensure they can meet the needs of future users.

There also needs to be investment from stakeholders at all levels, from the local municipality to the federal government and private business. One way to ensure that this happens is to lay out financing incentives, possibly through innovative tax-related measures and government-sponsored low-interest loans, so that public-private partnerships might find the resources necessary to make more strategic long-term investments in local and regional infrastructure.

But the base funds to do all of this work can’t come only from the ARRA. While two-thirds of the Recovery money has yet to be spent, and that spending will help direct investment to infrastructure. It was well-planned in that way. But the investment is not big enough. 2009 was a year when unprecedented levels of federal funding were required, so added funding was not a sound option.

But now, with the TARP funds coming back in, it seems clear the new revenues will be more than enough to fund a job-creation bill that could cost up to $50 billion, most of it from repayments that were generally dismissed one year ago as unlikely to materialize. Republicans are critical, saying such a bill will “expand the deficit”, but their own supply-side philosophy of economics would suggest smart investment choices in the jobs bill will actually create new federal tax revenues that can’t be created by any other means.

There is an argument to be made that if the reinvestment of TARP funds in job-creation works to generate enough new jobs, spur private investment and even motivate lending in the banking sector, the same will be true as was true of TARP: as the program plays out and achieves its stated aims, new sources of revenue will guarantee the $50 billion was really an investment with positive returns and not an “expansion of the deficit”.

Pres. Obama has already said he believes the TARP repayments could work to reduce the federal budget deficit or go directly toward investment in job creation. There is also the question of whether money set aside for the TARP bailout program that might not be needed by the banks could actually be used for “selective approaches that are consistent with the original goals of TARP” but more focused on deficit-reduction and job-creation.

Such a strategy might be the best opportunity for a generation to steer comprehensive investment in desperately needed infrastructure upgrades, which could also create tens of thousands of new jobs across the country. While critics want to paint Obama as a big-spender, missing that opportunity could be a bungling of the recovery process that history will see as a glaring mistake: the future needs smart, strong, resilient infrastructure, and right now, the overall grade is D, barely passing.