What do they mean by 'infrastructure'? (0.00 / 0)

More mass transit, fixing bridges, and updating the power grid?

Or more freeways that'll lead to more sprawl?

---

by: Chachy @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 21:49:34 PM UTC

Nelson Is An Ass, Pushing A GOP Meme (4.00 / 2)

ALL spending creates jobs, and he ought to be smacked down just for promulgating the rightwing meme that all tax cuts create jobs, but only some spending does.

I am much less concerned with wanting it one bill rather than another per se, but the rationale and the delay, that's what bothers me mightily.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 21:59:00 PM UTC

That's true (0.00 / 0)

But you know what -- if the conservative Dems and a few moderate Republicans like McCain wanted to trade the Pell Grants, STD funding, and smoking prevention for a MAJOR increase in mass transit spending (I'm talking tens of billions of dollars), then I'd be all for it.

This is supposed to be a jobs bill, the vote will be close, public support is 50-50, and let's face it -- the infrastructure spending in the bill is pathetic.

I'd rather see a much better bill, with more jobs-producing infrastructure, than the one we have right now. Sure, swapping tax cuts for infrastructure would be ideal, but neither Obama or the Senate seems to be on that track. And I'm positive that the funding for Pell Grants, STDs, etc. could be passed in another bill, just as we are seeing with the family planning funding.

Taker a longer view of things, that's a tradeoff I would definitely take.

---

by: existenz @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:43:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great News! Lets pump up this stimulus package (4.00 / 2)

so that it actually works!

Though I disagree about Nelson's position.

I think Senator Nelson, for once, is exactly right. This is supposed to be an economic stimulus. Lets make sure that it is an economic stimulus. It should only contain things like middle and working class tax cuts, increased social safety net spending (food stamps, medicare, unemployment insurance), and infrastructure investment, which are all progressive policies that have the added benefit of stimulating the economy.

Though I think Pell grant increases and other college aid could be justified as stimulus, leaving the STD-treatment and other non-stimulus spending in the bill gives Republicans room to oppose and attack it as nothing more than a spending bill for democratic priorities. We will pass the non-stimulus items that were put in the bill in the upcoming health care bill, transportation bill, energy bill, etc.

Yes, when purely speaking of outcomes, it makes no difference what piece of legislation those items go through on. However, in terms of framing pieces of legislation for political purposes, it absolutely matters.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

---

by: DFLer @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 22:01:55 PM UTC

People aren't dumb (4.00 / 1)

Yes, when purely speaking of outcomes, it makes no difference what piece of legislation those items go through on. However, in terms of framing pieces of legislation for political purposes, it absolutely matters.

As much as Republicans seem to think otherwise, people aren't stupid. If you tell someone that you are going to pass program X, they don't care about the name of the bill that program X passes under. They really don't.

People aren't dumb. We should stop treating them like they are.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 22:25:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No they really aren't (4.00 / 3)

and that's why saying this legislation is an absolutely crucial piece of legislation designed to immediately stimulate the economy and then packing it full of provisions that won't provide immediate stimulus won't go over well.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

---

by: DFLer @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 22:40:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You suggest they are stupid (0.00 / 0)

Let me repeat your quote:

Yes, when purely speaking of outcomes, it makes no difference what piece of legislation those items go through on. However, in terms of framing pieces of legislation for political purposes, it absolutely matters.

You are saying:

1. The outcome is the same no matter what bills these spending provisions are in. However...
2. ...we need to make sure the packaging looks good, so people won't get mad.

You are saying that people are stupid. You are saying that people don't understand that the outcome is the same, so we need to trick them into supporting the outcome by improving the packaging.

People aren't that dumb. The only way to sell this package to them is for the economy to turn around next year. The sound bites don't matter.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 00:08:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, thats not what I am saying (0.00 / 0)

I think the policy outcomes will likely be the same since I think the initiatives will be passed, whether they are piled into the stimulus package now or are taken up later this year in their respective spending bills.

Now, which representatives vote for and against those policies will likely be different depending on whether they are included in the stimulus or are taken up in more appropriate legislation later. Holding representatives accountable for their votes is much easier when they don't have wishy-washy pieces of legislation to hide behind.

Nearly everyone supports an economic stimulus right now, assuming it is a true stimulus. The American people and their representatives deserve a chance to vote on a stimulus alone. Those willing to vote for a true stimulus should be able to run on it in 2 years and those who voted against it should be able to be held accountable by their constituents. This becomes much more difficult if the stimulus bill was kind-of/sort-of a stimulus but also a package of non-stimulus spending on a variety of other initiatives.

I also support the non-stimulus, Democratic initiatives that are being pumped into the legislation. However, I'd wager that some of them are not nearly as popular as the economic stimulus. I believe the American people and their representatives deserve a chance to debate and vote on those initiatives in legislative vehicles to which they are more germane. Now, many will vote for the stimulus as well as the later legislation. However, some will not. Voters who believe we need an economic stimulus but that other spending should be postponed, or other spending isn't necessary, or health spending is necessary but education is not, or whatever, should be able to voice their views and their representatives should have a chance to reflect those views through votes on transparent legislation. Voters will then be better able to hold them accountable.

Thus, the political outcomes are not the same, and it has nothing to do with people being stupid.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

---

by: DFLer @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:05:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huh? (4.00 / 2)

"Providing hundreds of millions of dollars for prevention of smoking and sexually-transmitted disease ... does not create jobs."

Really?  Where does the money go, then?  Do clinics that specialize in smoking cessation just take the money, flush it down the toilet, and then recruit volunteers to counsel the patients?

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 22:19:51 PM UTC

doesn't that money just go to (already existing) ad agencies & private orgs? (0.00 / 0)

they won't create jobs -- they just maybe maybe will prevent job losses at those places.

and some -- if not most -- of the private orgs for addictions already use mostly volunteers -- and not paid employees.

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 22:39:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would assume so. (0.00 / 0)

Just like infrastructure jobs would go to already existing construction and engineering firms.  

As far as a private org with an all volunteer staff, then what do they spend money on?  If they get more money, then they spend more money on whatever they're already spending money on, and even if it's only buying more pens and pencils, isn't that the point of stimulus, to get money in the system and get things moving again?

That said, I bet there's other programs that result in more jobs generated per dollar spent, but to say that health programs result in no jobs generated (or saved) seems silly.

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 22:52:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well, it should be spent on providing goods/services most of all -- (0.00 / 0)

you'd assume they spend the bulk of their money on actual services and goods for the people they help, no? They already exist and have staff -- and saving jobs is very important, but it doesn't create new ones for the most part. We need to be creating jobs first and foremost, i'd say.

Here in NYC we spend public money on smoking cessation -- http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/ht... -- NYC Smoking Cessation Programs

NYC Bureau of Tobacco Control -- New York City's Five-Point Tobacco Control Plan: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/ht...

(oddly, the staff directory link there doesn't work, and googling doesn't help -- i wonder how many people actually are employed?)

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:23:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what about non- "boy jobs" in this "stimulus"? (4.00 / 1)

infrastructure jobs are overwhelmingly male-dominated.

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 22:41:00 PM UTC

You mean like counseling? (4.00 / 1)

:)

Here's a link.

You have a very good point.

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 22:47:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

According to the administration's estimates (0.00 / 0)

women will do pretty well with the stimulus:

Summing across industries suggests that the total number of created jobs likely to go to women is roughly 42% of the jobs created by the package. Given that so far in the recession women have accounted for roughly 20% of the decline in payroll
employment, this calculation could reflect that the stimulus package skews job creation somewhat toward women, possibly as a result of the investments in healthcare, education, and state fiscal relief.3 However, it is important to keep in mind that it is possible that the gender composition of the jobs created by industry will not follow the industry average, and so smaller fractions are possible.4

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8...

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

---

by: DFLer @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 22:48:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i've read it but don't believe it -- (0.00 / 0)

especially since Congress is changing the mix so much.

Most of the targeted spending and things specifically intended to create jobs that i've seen are mostly "shovel-ready" and "boy" jobs -- construction, buildings (like schools) and infrastructure repair and creation, utilities, energy, etc.

The healthcare stuff is either being cut or given to already existing programs, etc -- saving jobs but not creating them.

I think they're looking at State, Fed and Local Govt employment stats and counting that as helping women.

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:27:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

tons of data/charts here -- (new) Rep. Polis wrote to Obama on gender equity in stimulus -- (0.00 / 0)

Polis Calls for Gender Equity in Recovery Package --

http://polis.house.gov/2009/01...

... This letter explores the potential gender inequity effects of the anticipated infrastructure spending, and in particular the impact of construction expenditures. Previous public works spending, most notably during the New Deal, disproportionately employed men, but today women compose nearly half of the workforce. It was a mistake then and it would be an even greater mistake today to do nothing to address this inequity.  This letter briefly presents potential policy remedies to prevent a shift of wealth away from women-maintained families and single women households, whose federal taxes and debt obligations could end up subsidizing jobs for men-maintained families and single men households.  The objective is to ensure that the largest federally funded jobs program since the Great Depression does not have the effect of redistributing America's taxes from the poorest and mostly female households to a group that is almost entirely male.

Who Needs Help

In 2007, women comprised 46% of the total U.S. labor force of 153 million.  Specifically, 71 million (59.3%) of all women age 16 and over were either working or actively looking for a job, compared to 82 million (73%) of all men.   While men have experienced slightly higher unemployment rates than women in 2008,  as shown in Figure 1, their respective rates have been quite similar since 2000,  as shown in Figure 2.  It is also important to note that women with children experience much higher unemployment rates than men with children,  as illustrated in Figure 3.

Worse still, there is evidence that women who have experienced job displacement face a harder time finding new jobs than men. Although 1.6 million women and 2 million men were displaced from jobs they had held for at least 3 years during 2005-2007, by January 2008, the reemployment rate for women was 64%, compared with 70% for men, and women were almost twice (20%) as likely as men (11%) to have exited the labor force.
...

---

by: amberglow @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:35:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well.... (0.00 / 0)

Stimulus spending makes all kids of jobs. If you want to build a new rail line, you need environmental reviews and planning - which involves scores of different professional and support staff, like engineers, analysts, office support staff, accountants, lawyers, etc. Then to actually do the job, you don't just need construction workers, you need the staff to support a job site and the materials to do the job. So that spending spreads to offices, manufactures, raw materials producers, etc (and all of their offices, lawyers, advertisers, consultants, managers, and so on).

I guess a lot of those jobs are male-centric, but it isn't all hard-hats and jack-hammers.

The same argument goes for these proposed funds for sexual education and Pell grants - all that money gets paid to someone, usually lots and lots of different professions.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 22:49:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

also (0.00 / 0)

more jobs in one industry helps the economy in others, where women may have higher representation. I'm friends with lots of waitresses, and business is way down since this recession started. The same goes for the women I know in the retail industry, accounting, even law firms. So the multiplier effect would definitely help women as well. Plus, women will be half the riders on these new trains.

And, as you point out, plenty of women work as engineers, planning commissions, construction company mgmt, etc. Saying that infrastructure spending leaves women out is honestly a rather ridiculous and short-sighted argument.

---

by: existenz @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:27:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

trickle-down is not good enough at all -- (0.00 / 0)

Women are poorer to begin with, and those with children even more harmed by this economy. And assuming that they will be helped from this stimulus is not the direct help they deserve -- as much as -- if not more so than outdoor and construction workers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

-- A Masculine Stimulus Package: Where Are the Jobs for Women?

... Women make up less than 10% of all construction workers and only 20% of Information Technology professionals nationally. And when you subtract the number of women administrative assistants and surveyors, the number of women construction workers plunges to less than 2%.

Digitizing medical records will go a long way to help cut healthcare costs and streamline bureaucratic processes. It will also create jobs for Information Technology specialists that will be needed to develop new systems and train medical professionals on how to use them. However, aside from obvious privacy concerns, it is likely that digitizing medical records will result in a loss of jobs for women as they are most likely to have managed medical records and files by hand in the past.

In attempting to craft a stimulus package that will not only ignite the economy, but help people who are struggling, more consideration should be given to the everyday realities of working people, particularly single women heads of households.

In a vulnerable and weak economy, women and single-women heads of households are hit hardest. They tend to earn less and have fewer assets than their male counterparts. And single mothers and their families are more likely to live in poverty than any other demographic group in the United States. ...

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:35:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

on "trickle-down" jobs -- Caterpillar stands to make big $$, but cut 22k jobs -- (0.00 / 0)

they will definitely have increased sales from the stimulus, no? but they're cutting many many jobs, even now.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin... -- Caterpillar to Cut Another 2,110 Production Jobs --

Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. announced 2,110 new job cuts Friday as it scales back production amid a world economic slowdown.

The world's largest maker of mining and construction machinery said the layoffs at three Illinois plants -- in Aurora, Decatur and East Peoria -- and other cost-cutting measures were needed to maintain competitiveness. Like other big manufacturers, Caterpillar has seen demand for its large equipment fall as customers cut back spending.

The new layoffs came on top of 20,000 job cuts announced earlier this week, when the Peoria, Ill.-based company reported a 32 percent drop in fourth-quarter profit. Results fell as slumping commodity prices, tight credit markets and a decline in construction hurt orders for Caterpillar's backhoes, tractors and other machines.

''Over the last few months, recessionary conditions have had a very negative impact on our customers,'' Bob Williams, vice president for the Americas Operations Division at Caterpillar, said in statement. The company ''must drastically reduce our production levels and cost structure to remain competitive for the long run.''

...

---

by: amberglow @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 00:48:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

health care, education, grants to states (0.00 / 0)

The stimulus bill has over $500 billion in spending, the vast majority of which is going to "non-boy" jobs in state governments, health care, education, etc.

---

by: existenz @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:29:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

states are all cutting budgets, so that money only will fill in just some of the gaps -- (0.00 / 0)

they will only maybe save some existing jobs and programs -- not create new ones.

and there's not even enough being given to states -- or cities -- like in NY or CA, to cover existing budget deficits, which are in the billions already and growing.

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:38:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

& there's this -- "Mayors, legislators worry stimulus skips cities" -- (0.00 / 0)

Reuters --  http://www.reuters.com/article...

--

With U.S. cities concerned that Congress is shutting them out of economic recovery plans, Rep. Paul Kanjorski attempted late Tuesday to add $60 billion in direct aid to local governments to the stimulus bill the House of Representatives will vote on Wednesday.

The amendment to create a general revenue-sharing program failed, but an aide to the Pennsylvania Democrat told Reuters on Wednesday it will be introduced as separate legislation later this year.

"As the recovery bill currently stands, very little of the legislation focuses on aid to local governments, which face massive deficits that harm needed programs and jobs for residents," said Kanjorski, who chairs the subcommittee on capital markets, in a statement.

U.S. mayors mostly agree, voicing worries last week that states will control most of the aid distributed through the House bill. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said money should be directly allocated to cities and not passed through state governments, which might use it to plug budget holes. ...

---

by: amberglow @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 00:03:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm for infrastructure, period. (4.00 / 3)

I don't like Nelson's idea, I think the business tax cuts should be cut or the size of the package should be increased. That said, I'm sure the STD funding could be added to a future health care bill. Or, maybe someone can convince Nelson that eliminating those funds are a bad idea.

My question is -- why aren't these folks pushing for MAJOR increases in infrastructure spending. It's incredibly popular on both sides of the aisle, it's even popular over on conservative blogs such as Andrew Sullivan, and it's always the first thing Democrats talk about when endorsing the stimulus. I even saw some conservative GOP members talking about $160 billion for mass transit corridors.

Yet as we know, infrastructure is still getting the shaft moneywise. Shumer and these other folks need to increase it by $50-100 billion, rather than these tiny $3 billion dollar amounts.

---

by: existenz @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:24:09 PM UTC

I bet the auto lobbies are behind this (4.00 / 1)

since they are the ones that gutted public transportation a long time ago. If public trans is good (think New York, Paris)people will not be so eager to buy cars.

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:29:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2.2 trillion needed for infrastructure alone in next 5 yrs -- (4.00 / 3)

... American Society of Civil Engineers, which assigned an overall D grade to the nation's infrastructure and estimated that it would take a $2.2 trillion investment from all levels of government over the next five years to bring it into a state of good repair. ...

-- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...

---

by: amberglow @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 00:07:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

FUCK the Pell Grants (4.00 / 1)

As a former teacher here's what is going on with them. They only reimburse students if they buy the latest edition. The publishers of course, know this and they change a color of the cover, add some pictures, change some pictures, add a paragraph to the text, and so on and so on to make a new edition.

The older editions which are almost the same, sometimes practically identical then go on Amazon or Half.ebay for pennies on the dollar. Add shipping and you can still really get a great deal. The new edition is say $95 and the older one  (last years) may be $5.00 plus shipping, but the student gets a free one if she qualifies for the Pell money, if she chooses the new edition which the university bookstore always carries. This puts money in the university bookstore which goes who knows where.

And the millions come from taxes that could go to better uses. Health care? Public transportation?

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:27:38 PM UTC

i've heard that the Pell "increases" don't even make up for the cuts/changes made in the past, too -- (0.00 / 0)

Bush threw people out of eligibility in 04 and made cuts, if not at other times too -- http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCAT... -- Department of Education to tighten Pell Grant eligibility --

A change in eligibility for Pell Grants to be announced Thursday by the Department of Education would cut some 90,000 students from the rolls of recipients and affect more than 1 million others, an education advocate says.

In addition to those who will lose their grants completely, "we estimate about 1.3 million students will see reductions in their grants from $100 to $300 per year," said Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education, a trade association representing 2,000 public and private colleges and universities.
...
But the program, which costs $13 billion per year, is in deficit. ...

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 23:43:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unlike you I am glad to have received them. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Micheline @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 00:39:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

they should be increased -- we're all glad grants/fed aid exists -- (0.00 / 0)

we need far far far more money for them -- always.

and now even this Pell part of the stimulus will be cut -- blue dog dems and the GOP want it out.

---

by: amberglow @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 00:45:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If that is truly the case (0.00 / 0)

then instead of dumping Pell grants, better to reform the bizarre restrictions you have mentioned.

---

by: Helzapoppin @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:41:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

For quite some time I have been a lurker (0.00 / 0)

You say that congressional offices have been inundated with phone calls against the stimulus, but polls have shown how popular the bill is.

---

by: Micheline @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 00:37:30 AM UTC

I'm all for infrastructure expeditures (4.00 / 1)

since those projects constitute a win-win. Either they stimulate the economy and give us something of value, or they just give us something of value. I'm flexible on the other items which would provide an economic boost at least in the short term.

But I absolutely positively will not support any more money dumps to banks. It's top heavy trickle-down bullshit and it's not going to work.

---

by: Helzapoppin @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:37:35 AM UTC

Reforming restrictions would take weeks of arguing in congress over details (0.00 / 0)

The publishing houses are the ones who benefit the most. I am not saying they don't help students. But my students who were internet savvy knew how to get their books so much more cheaply that the other students mouths fell open when they heard how little they had paid.

Of course as their instructor I made a point of giving them the info as to how to buy books on the cheap on the internet. We compared editions and did some critical thinking, propaganda analysis out of the deal.

Of course if you qualify, and it is getting harder, and don't know any other way of getting your recced textbook, then it seems like a heavenly gift. You are supposed to feel that way so the publishers can keep getting their mojo.

Don't praise Pell Grants just because you benefitted when your limited info was the reason. That's what you are programmed and brainwashed to believe.

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 20:24:18 PM UTC