Only 5 percent of $819b plan would go toward infrastructure

[Turborama]

Source: Boston Globe

By Michael Kranish

Globe Staff / January 29, 2009

WASHINGTON - Five weeks before becoming president, Barack Obama urged passage of a massive economic stimulus package, vowing that it would "create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s."

But the bill passed by the House yesterday dedicates only about 5 percent of the $819 billion measure to highway, mass transit, and rail projects, analysts said. That has prompted even some Democratic supporters to complain that the transportation spending was gutted by Republicans who insisted on more tax cuts - none of whom voted for the measure anyway - and by Obama advisers who shifted priorities to advance policy goals.

Many economists have argued in recent weeks that spending on infrastructure would do more to quickly create jobs and pull the country out of recession than tax cuts for individuals and businesses, or investments in healthcare and alternative energy - such as grants for health information technology and for a smart electricity grid. The tax cuts and investments are now sizable elements of the recovery package, with Obama's assent.

Representative Michael Capuano, a Somerville Democrat on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said he has watched with frustration as spending for rapid transit and rail dropped during negotiations over the bill. For example, after an initial burst of enthusiasm for inter-city rail projects, the amount was reduced to $5 billion and then to $1.1 billion, he said.

The bill has $30 billion for roads and bridges and $12 billion for rapid transit, with decisions on specific projects to be made by state and local officials. But that's far less than originally sought by some Democrats, and could make it more difficult to fund some Massachusetts projects, such as work on roads, bridges, and the MBTA system, or a proposed extension of the commuter rail line from Lowell to Manchester, N.H.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/29/only_5_percent_of_819b_plan_would_go_toward_infrastructure/

---

More about this, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4934121

[Radical Activist]

1. Interesting

Since none of the Republicans voted for it I see no reason this shouldn't be restored in the Senate and put in the final version.

[The Last Democratic]

6. Huh!

I can’t believe not one rep. vote for the package…….oh yes I can. :-(

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. NO reason at all.

They need two Republican votes in the Senate I believe. I say stick it to them and let them block it, let them to continue to own the economic mess.

[Two Americas]

9. agreed

Of course. Obviously. No other choice.

[WCGreen]

2. You have to remember that there is a whole lot of money in the

Transportation budget already. This is over and above the funds already allocated to projects that are in the works. So it may not be as dire as the article makes it out to be.

Just saying.

[dkf]

3. What happened to green jobs?

I swear if we pass up this opportunity to move this country off of oil I will be pissed beyond belief.

I always thought we would be screwed because we wouldn't have the funds to transform our electricity grid and our sources of energy. Now we have hundreds of billions to spend and we seem to have no interest doing the things that will save us from the expensive oil I see coming down the pike.

I'm so disappointed in the Democratic Party. Apparently we are just as stupid as the Republicans.

[sandnsea]

5. It's all in there

75% of federal buildings are going to get green modernization. There's a ton of money for the electricity grid too. Just the media beating on Democrats, and the left helping, per usual.

[Two Americas]

11. "it" is not "all in there"

And "the left" is not "helping" the media beat up on Democrats.

You are taking zealous partisanship and party loyalty to absurd extremes, and demanding that we all do.

[dkf]

14. Isn't the estimate $1 trillion to modernize the grid and turn it to DC?

If a majority of the funds were for this purpose I'm sure we would have heard it.

[Barack_America]

19. Apparently energy development projects are not considered "infrastructure".

Nor are monies going towards public schools.

If you look at the pie chart in the article, the author has those costs excluded from "infrastructure" expenditures, which he seems to limit to things pertaining to wheeled vehicles.

[sandnsea]

4. Kerry's rail bill is $20 billion

and it was just added Monday. There's also more to infrastructure than transportation, and more people need jobs than just construction workers.

[No Elephants]

8. Why do Democrats allow Pubs to gut legislation that Pubs vote against anyway? We won, remember? nt

[Two Americas]

10. why, why, why

Why is it that now that even the media is saying that Republicans are screwing you and pushing the agenda to the right, are there Democrats right here saying "oh no, it is OK, it is all in there, it is pretty good, it is better than nothing, it is the best we can get right now" and on and on?

Why this obsessive demand that we roll over, compromise, cave in, back down, settle for? Why are people here staking out positions to the right from the insiders and media pundits and aggressively promoting those positions?

Good grief. We do Obama and the Democrats no favors whatsoever to continue to applaud them for compromising and caution them against fighting.

[stillcool]

15. The media? Are you expecting some kind..

of truth to be reported on the tv screen? I haven't read it, but I am certain that there is more in the 647 pages than the media has chosen to tell you.

[Two Americas]

23. quite familiar with it

I am familiar with the bill. I don't have a TV and never have. I certainly wouldn't depend upon it if I did.

I am talking about the things people are saying here.

[cali]

12. Much of the money directed toward schools is

for their infrastructure. That's over 40 billion.

[OneBlueSky]

13. on the job creation aspect of the bill . . .

seems to me there's going to be quite a disconnect between the kinds of jobs this stimulus will create and the kinds of jobs that most of those recently laid off/downsized/fired are qualified for . . .

most of the job losses seem to be of the white collar variety, while jobs to repair and upgrade the infrastructure are mostly blue collar . . . what we have right now are millions of unemployed people whose work experience is in retailing, or banking, or investments, or sales, or a host of other jobs that don't require physical labor . . . jobs repairing roads or schools or sewers or railroads, etc. are of a whole different nature, and all but the entry level positions require some work experience in construction-related fields . . .

so how are all those millions who've recently left one kind of job going to fill jobs of a competely different variety? . . .

[OhioChick]

24. You raise some valid points. n/t

[Pharlo]

29. It will be much quicker for these people to adapt to construction jobs

than it was for the manufacturing sector to 'retrain' to find a job as manufacturing was shipped overseas. And, for those who opt NOT to go into the construction job market, there is always the option to 'retrain' in 'another field'.

The 'entry level' is where everyone starts in ANY career choice. Once you get in, you work your way up. Fortunately, blue collar jobs at the entry level tend to have a lower required 'skill set' than many white collar entry level jobs. That is why this is considered a 'best immediate option' in the current situation. It would be much worse if the basic opening offered required a two year degree in a specific field to get an 'entry level' position.

The initial job boost the government can offer right now is in infrastructure repair. It's not going to be suited to everyone, but in the current situation, it's something. A job is a job. Eventually, the government will create other positions, but this is something they can start NOW. Much of the planning has been done, most repairs were waiting for funding allocation. Funds become available, jobs open up.

Honestly, I don't think the 'job disconnect' will be that much of an issue for many.

[doodadem]

16. Email or call your senators!

I just sent the following email to Senators Boxer and Feinstein:

"We were so relieved and heartened when Obama was elected. It has truly been inspiring. And puts the grownups back in charge!

But now, down to the gritty work. The stimulus package is obviously sorely needed. We personally have one who lost their job, unemployment benefits running out, no health insurance, and barely managed to pull our property back out of foreclosure. It's a nightmare.

The initial stimulus package was a good thing. The Republicans managed to blackmail you into changing it into their typical tax cuts that never work for anyone except the wealthy and big business--and then still didn't vote for it. WE DON'T NEED THEM. Right now, they are nothing but a hinderance to recovery.

Please, take the Republican tax cuts BACK OUT of this bill, and allocate the money back to infrastructure, green technology, and jobs, where it belongs.

thanks,"

[FriendlyReminder]

17. Just pass the damn thing without the republicans. They will not have the balls

to try and filibuster the thing. Then we can take credit for moving forward and they will just be a old relic from the past.

[Barack_America]

18. Define "infrastructure".

I consider "schools" and "green energy" to be components of "infrastructure".

The author apparently does not.

[Turborama]

21. I agree

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4934121">These articles fully define what I consider to be the components of infrastructure.

[HamdenRice]

20. It's not supposed to go to infrastructure. It's supposed to go to jobs and "aggregate demand"

I just wish everyone would take a few minutes to understand the Keynesian economic theory behind the stimulus package. The direct purpose is not to "fix infrastructure." The direct purpose is to increase "aggregate demand." That can be done by building infrastructure. Or, it could be done, as Keynes himself famously wrote, by hiring a large group of people to bury jars of money and then hire another group of people to dig them up.

The purpose is the create jobs and put money in consumers' pockets. If we are going to do that, it makes sense to have them make stuff that will last -- infrastructure. But it also makes sense to have them improve education or heal the sick.

No one ever promised or even wanted most of this money to go to infrastructure. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, can't everyone see that if all the money went into "highway, mass transit, and rail projects," then the only people employed under the bill would be highway and rail construction workers? Is that your idea of a recovery plan?

If you want to understand the theory, go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8139187&mesg_id=8141722

[stillcool]

28. Thanks!

[FSogol]

22. Construction projects don't just create construction jobs, they also create

jobs for engineers, architects, consultant, cad drafters, designers, planners, inspectors, etc.

[Turborama]

25. There's also manufacturing - tools, equipment, materials, saftey clothing etc

& the multiplier effect when local economies are boosted by an influx of workers arriving to work on projects.

[FSogol]

26. Yup, true. Infrastructure spending is a good idea and long overdue, imo

Think of all the improved school buildings!

[ncteechur]

27. That would still be about 300% more than W spent on infrastructure in 8 years.