We won, get over it, Eff them.

That sounds like, er, them, but I second the emotion. You have been missed, Rotwang. Glad to read you.

Glad you're back!

I agree, it's not stimulus. But we do have needs beyond that. The length of the recession isn't our only problem. If we don't get a hockey stick type recovery and instead get the L-Shaped recovery that Krugman predicts where the economy bottoms and then just does nothing, we are going to need long-term SUPERTRAINS type projects to help put a floor on the jobs market in the long run.

Let the economy crash, and then start spending only what the government, corporations, companies, and families actually earn in revenue, profits, and income. President Obama and the Dems have been elected to come up with some solutions. It's been reported that the Dems (and now the R's too) have attached over 200 amendments to Obama's original stimulus bill.

Let's see some spine from the President himself, and use his "line item veto" and cut out from both sides, the pork and corporate greed. This bipartisanship that Obama campaigned on will be another promise tossed out the window, and probably, deservingly so....

I thought the comment to the right, "Pork IS stimulus" was pretty funny until I read this from the WSJ describing how only 12% of the $825 billion is for actual economic stimulus. That's less than the 2005 $250 billion highway bill. I wonder how that worked out.
Considering that "only" $350 billion has been spent on propping up the banks so far, pork had better work.

Comments . . .

Bwakfat -- I agree construction workers need work, but like I said, the money for construction is spread over a more lengthy period than equivalent money for other things we could benefit from.

destor23 with the big shoulders -- Sure, if the recession lasts longer, then there is more value -- or less disadvantage -- to a lengthier project. But sooner is still better than later. A million new jobs this year are better than somewhat more than a million spread over more than a year. How much I couldn't say. The reason is that income generated sooner generates multiplier effects sooner, hence more jobs sooner, and has a stronger impact on the recession.

MarkB -- Yes, money to keep existing transit systems in full operation is stimulus. What people typically complain about, however, is lack of funding for wholly new projects.

shooter -- Actually pork is too stimulus. But as all advocates from Keynes forward have agreed, it would be better to spend stimulus money on useful stuff than on pork.

This helped me get the picture about futuristic pie in the sky:

Fifty-one transit systems have recently proposed service cuts or fare increases, including those in Atlanta, Denver, New York, Phoenix, St. Louis, San Diego and Washington. If these cuts go through, they will make it harder for people to get to work (or look for work), and they will undermine one of the long-term goals of the stimulus package: laying the groundwork for a greener economy.

from David Leonhardt's New York Times' column today, "A Stimulus With Merit, and Misses Too."

I understand how and why people want to hear a "we'll put a man on the moon in ten years" thingie, but we don't have ten years.

By the way, there is a great chart attached to that article, titled "Plans for the Stimulus Money."

There is truth in what you say, Rotwang, but stimulating the US economy out of the depression can't be isolated from its long-term economic vitality. China, for example, is also getting sucked down into the depression, but there has been much news over the past year about how it is responding by pouring money into infrastructure projects. See most recently, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/worldbusiness/23yuan.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=china%20infrastructure&st=cse.

This situation suggests that ten years from now the US will be out of the depression with an even more crumbling infrastructure, while China will be out of the depression with a modern, world-class infrastructure. Such an outcome does not augur well for the US economy.

Of course, there are differences, such as China's having tons of money and the US deeply in debt. But the fact remains that when you pull the US out of the depression you want to land on solid ground, not on quicksand. You can't isolate 'stimulus' from 'long-term health and stability.'

You could line up an array of excellent projects that take a long time to get done, that provide excellent benefits once they are done. And we should do that. But without timely action now we could slide for a decade with little or no growth. That would be very bad, not least for our ability to finance the other stuff.

We should not assume that long run equals good benefits and right now equals pork. Big projects can be white elephants, and short term consumption can be very valuable in its time. As someone mentioned, maintaining current operations in transit systems is good business and appropriate stimulus, building Sarah's bridge not so much.

Part of the lesson from FDR is a) Do more than you think you should, as fast as you possibly can b) Don't let the spending fall off a cliff after a few years like FDR did in 1936 and we went back into recession in 1937.

Also, after the recession is over, we will still face the issue that a large part of our economy (about 20%) has to be converted from financial activity to actual jobs. That will require some sort of industrial policy. (whether you call it that or not).

I don't buy the argument that we can't spend money on infrastructure projects quickly. Consider structurally deficient bridges as one example. There are approximately 170,000 structurally deficient bridges with a repair cost estimated at $140 billion. If these bridges are repaired on their existing alignments, then I see no reason why they could not occur on a rapid schedule. These projects will fit within categorical exclusions from NEPA's requirement for an environmental impact statement. There is no right-of-way acquisition if you are staying in the same alignment, and no need to prepare a 4(f) statement (which would address taking historical properties). All that you need to do is design the project, get your Section 404 and NPDES permits and then proceed with letting and construction.

Structurally deficient bridges are just one example. I haven't looked for more, but I find it hard to believe that there aren't numerous important infrastructure projects that could occur rapidly if they were funded.

I suspect that infrastructure is getting the shaft in this bill, not because it won't stimulate the economy, but because legislators treated the stimulus bill as a trough for "sexier" funding priorities that they've long sought.

I see your point, but you paint with such a broad brush. If you limit your argument to supertrains (and other as-yet-unplanned infrastructure), I agree with you.

It seems there are many large-scale rail and road projects ready to go but stalled out waiting for funding. These projects not only put large numbers of people to work directly, they consume a sizable quantity of supplies (like concrete, steel and asphalt) from industries reeling over the downturn in construction, helping keep those workers employed as well. Subsidizing urban worker's wages seems less synergistic (but perfectly valid and important).

One thought: there could be some legislative strategy going on here. It makes sense to fund stuff with the stimulus package that can't fall under a different bill. Much of this large infrastructure stuff can be addressed in transportation and energy bills that legislators have been hinting are on the near horizon. There is no reason they can't gear those packages for stimulus deployment - combined with long term planning that would be lacking in the pure stimulus context.

Maybe we should wait to see the entire lineup of legislation before drawing too many conclusions from the first bill.

And in addition, howabout Rapid 'ultra' light street cars, running down the middle of every big street, with station stops every mile, ... with no fair. That's right FREE rides. It can be paid for with increases in property taxes from the increased value of property near the street car stations.

This would mean less consumption of petroleum, and most of the time, most people would be in less than a half mile walk to a free ride. The increased health from walking would be another benefit.

Let's give that idea another $200 billion.

"Shit has to work, people."

no it's

"shit, people have to work!"

Rotwang! You're back! I'm glad they released you so quickly!

As for your transit argument above I agree insofar as your discussion of supertrains is concerned. I agree with your take on it. They are needed and a very good idea but quite long term. We should have a major committment to Supertrains but it can come separate from the stimulus bill. As for mass transit though, few people who deal with mass transit consider Supertrains to be mass transit. Typically, mass transit consists of the buses, subways and light rail lines of our great cities. That is mass transit. The stimulative impact of providing large amounts of money to buy new buses which are badly needed in nearly ever city would be substantial and you could make them all zero emission buses too! You can order lots of new light rail cars and subway cars and trolleys and do lots of needed repairs and other work that has been being put off for years but can be quickly implemented. That is why I think mass transit sans the Sueprtrain addition should be in the stimulus bill.

Welcome back!

Eff them, indeed.

Right now the Chicago Transit Authority alone has $5 billion dollars worth of deferred maintenance they could start spending on tomorrow. The head of the CTA testified in the House that if Congress gave the CTA a check they could write $500 million of their own the next day to get started.

Transit agencies in cities across the country could buy 10,000 new hybrid buses that get double the mileage of their current aging stock. They're made in the USA as are the parts.

The point is not all infrastructure projects are mega projects starting from scratch. They will create jobs, they will provide stimulus this year.

Looking ahead , since every $ spent now can be considered as creating the need for a $ to be cut
when the upturn comes, where do they come from?

My candidate is the defense budget. Don't give the chiefs a mission and ask them how much they need to achieve it. Instead establish as paramaters that mission statement and DOD spending half the current % of GDP and ask the chiefs to respond.

After they say they can't do it, replace them with chiefs not who are willing to try, but who will do it. Gates will be long gone and his replacement should probably be either one of those two antagonists:Dean and Emmanuel.

There's a certain backwards chaining involved here. Major procurements have a cost pattern typified by a learning curve (first unit $1000, #2,$800, #4,$640,#8,$512, #1000,$108).How does that affect today's spending? This way. If you know you can't afford to produce enough to reach the sweet spot where they're affordable
don't start. That is, don't start production . Just do a bread board and a prototype. So the coming( I hope)drastic reduction in DOD casts its shadow back and should produce changes in this year's program management.

And if the current stimulus is creating this need for an offset starting in 2011, NASA needs to be told now that there ain't gonna be a moon shot in 2020.

Sure it's anti stimuluative to cut DOD and NASA in 2010 but there are plenty of other items to plug the breach.Like family planning.