Sunday, July 19, 2009

Where is the Infrastructure Money in The Recovery Bill?

First published on JANUARY 29, 2009 1:28AM

This is more just a question that I have no good answer for than anything else. I am certainly willing to be talked out of my unease, but does anybody else feel kind of upset that there is so very little money in an $816 BILLION recovery program for precisely the programs that President Obama said during the campaign the recovery package would have to include to get the economy started and put people back to work?

About $100 billion max, but only if you count some highly suspect sections as "infrastructure" spending, will be devoted to infrastructure in the bill as passed by the House.

Remember when the big deal was all of the construction work that was sitting "ready to go" in the cities and states and regional authorities and the Army Corps of Engineers on dams, dredging, levees, flood walls, etc.?

Jobs designed and waiting but with no money to spend on our roads, highways, bridges, levees, airports, public buildings, schools and other concrete actual projects that have something to show for all the effort when it is done, that put people to work and help rebuild America?

Remember when all the governors and mayors were asked to submit lists of projects that were ready to go right NOW? What happened to all that?

I know we have to spend a lot to bail out the states, to just get them out of debt and to extend unemployment insurance, save Medicaid, and beef up food stamps, etc. Those things are in the bill. They don't increase many jobs they do stop people from losing more jobs.

What about the people who don't have jobs? Where does it say that spending roughly 1% of the gross domestic product on real infrastructure construction jobs is likely to apply much of a stimulus to anything? Infrastructure jobs by definiton employ not just the people working on the project, but also the people working for the suppliers. There is a huge multiplier effect in such projects: steel, concrete, sand, cement, construction equipment, trucks, and on and on.

Where among all the pet projects and favorite special interest venues of the Democratic congressional delegation that proliferate in the House bill are we seeing actual money being set aside for things that will employ people NOW and in the remainder of the year?

As it is written now the estimate is that less than 20% of the money being authorized can be spent this calendar year on anything, and far less than that in this fiscal year which ends September 30.

I have the sinking feeling that this is starting to look like the Democratic version of the Republican give away a few months ago. Anybody else get that feeling?

Barney Frank was on TV tonight and basically admitted that it was politics as usual. That is a sad commentary on all we hoped for if he is right. What do you think?

Opinions anybody?

Monte