Public Infrastructure Spending: They Can't Be Serious
By David Sirota
January 15, 2009 - 11:38am ET
Popular This Week
Colorado Springs: Conservatism's Shining City
Danger: Falling Middle Class
Also Worth Reading
TAKE ACTION: Use this online tool to tell Congress to pass a bold stimulus package - not a watered-down half-measure.
The Washington Post reports that the economic recovery package Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are proposing includes a lot of good stuff - aid to cities and states, increased unemployment insurance and food stamps. But here's the really bad part: The Post says the package "includes about $85 billion worth of infrastructure spending, most for highway and bridge construction." That's it - $85 billion in an $850 billion bill.
$85 billion for infrastructure in a nation that now regularly sees bridge collapses, steam pipe explosions, sink holes, dam failures, levee breaks and blackouts.
$85 billion at a time when Obama is demanding another $350 billion blank check for Wall Street.
$85 billion when the American Society of Civil Engineers says we need $1.6 trillion.
$85 billion in the same package that could include hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts - many for the banks that created the economic mess. This, at a time when U.S. News & World Report notes that a new poll shows 81 percent of Americans are ready to pay higher taxes to fund significant infrastructure investments.
$85 billion, we are told, is "serious" and "pragmatic" - in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is anything but. As Paul Krugman notes, there's plenty of worthy investments that need funding - and the "shovel-ready" limitations are nonsense:
Since unemployment is likely to remain high well beyond that two-year window, the plan should also include longer-term investment projects. And bear in mind that even a project that delivers its main punch in, say, 2011 can provide significant economic support in earlier years. If Mr. Obama drops the “jump-start” metaphor, if he accepts the reality that we need a multi-year program rather than a short burst of activity, he can create a lot more jobs through government investment, even in the near term.
Still, shouldn’t Mr. Obama wait for proof that a bigger, longer-term plan is needed? No. Right now the investment portion of the Obama plan is limited by a shortage of “shovel ready” projects, projects ready to go on short notice. A lot more investment can be under way by late 2010 or 2011 if Mr. Obama gives the go-ahead now — but if he waits too long before deciding, that window of opportunity will be gone.
So considering that, let's hope $85 billion is just a starting point. Otherwise, it's not a serious proposal - not even close.
Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign
for America's Future or Institute for America's Future

Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
