Where is the Infrastructure Money in The Recovery Bill?

First published on JANUARY 29, 2009 1:28AM

Click "Submit Abuse" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

Cancel

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

The Bridge to Nowhere: Are “Earmarks” All That BAD?

From my Open Salon Blog: NOVEMBER 8, 2008 7:20PM

Click "Submit Abuse" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

Cancel

I have fallen way behind in reading the hard copy magazines that I get. The Nov. 3 issue of Newsweek, that arrived in late October, contains a very useful and informative explanation of the most famous earmarked project in the last decade or so: the doomed “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Its author is the newly elected Mayor of Ketchican, Alaska, the 14,000 resident town that the bridge would have connected to its airport across the narrows – and connected the town to the only developable relatively flat land anywhere near to Ketchican. Ketchikan, as small as it is, is the fourth largest city in Alaska. I have no particular brief for this project and its outlandish expense, but it is worth reading a well thought out, courteous and clear article from “the other side.” You can read this short article HERE.

As the mayor-elect, Dave Kiffer, points out, earmarks were once not seen as simply “pork” but as a way that the elected Representative or Senator from an area could try to meet, in a timely fashion, the felt needs of his or her constituents. They were seen as a way to meet urgent needs that the Federal bureaucracy was both too slow and too unspecific to process in an efficient way.

Earmarks, he says, currently account for only about 1% of the total Federal Budget. I didn’t track the veracity of that remark, but it sounds about right. During the campaign for President, critics of John McCain argued that his pledge to eliminate earmarks and pork, while a noble idea, could, at best, eliminate only about $18 billion dollars of expense a year. That is not an insignificant amount but it pales in comparison to the annual Federal Budget.

Long before I read Kiffer’s article I have thought that, for me at least, the issue of earmarks and so-called pork was less about the need to take a general stand against this “evil,” but rather the problem was that some earmarks seemed to be, and probably were, frivolous, or worse, payoffs to lobbies and corporations for favors done for the congressman/woman.

Concurrently, I felt that there is a gross unfairness as to who is able to get earmarks and who is not. Committee Chairmen are in position to easily get earmarks, particularly those of the Appropriations and Ways and Means committees. And seniority plays a huge roll in deciding who gets a cut of the pie. Junior and short term members of Congress usually get just a few, relatively low cost, projects. They have, it seems, to ‘pay their dues” and “do the time” to get a larger piece of the pork pie. Part of that paying of dues over time turns into mutual backscratching and gaining access to the system to know which bills to attach the pork to and which bills are going nowhere.

The best bills to attach earmarks to are, of course, bills that are urgently needed for other important and popular causes which means that, since the President does not have an line item veto authority, those bills are likely to get passed and signed. It has been a rare President indeed who would risk, for example, vetoing a bill that, if vetoed would literally run the government out of money. It has happened, but it is rare.

A line item veto would be of some help, but is not the panacea that many think. For example, when the same party controls both the White House and the Congress it is possible to laden an otherwise good bill with tons of pork with the assurance that the line item veto would not be used.

I would be interested in hearing from OS members their ideas about what should be done about pork barrel projects and other earmarks.

Keeping in mind that our representative democracy is founded on the assumption that our representatives and senators know best the needs are of the area they represent, should earmarks be done away with totally?

Here is a possibility that I think might be worth trying. Rather than doing away with all earmarks and pork, why not allocate a sum of money each year to each Representative and Senator to be spent on projects that he or she thinks would best meet the urgent needs of his or her constituents? The amount could be based on some formula, like the population of districts and states, with a minimum amount per state and district so that even the smallest states and districts would get some money to spend. Its just a thought, and its not thought through, but something along these lines could solve the problem of backscratching and inequitable allocation of earmarks that we see today.

What do you think about this whole issue?

Monte