In a sense he is correct, that the government will carry less risk than if they were to fund the project in a traditional manner, but it is only marginally less risk with SUBSTANTIALLY less transparency and is being passed off as if it were almost zero risk, and that is the real problem.

Let's say, for example, we have a $5B project.  If the government runs the project themselves they list it as a $5B liability and assume all the risk out in the open.  With the Infrastructure Bank the private company running the project lists the $5B liability on their books.  The government is backstopping the losses though, so they maintain a lot of the risks.  How much?  That will be nearly impossible to calculate, but they will keep only a trivial amount on their books as a liability, probably well under 10% ($500M in our example) while their risk will be much greater than that.