Policy Splits on the Stimulus

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 17:40


$800 billion is a lot of money, so you'd think that it would see more reporting than the stupid Blago story, which reveals more about the insipid priorities of the traditional media than anything about the Obama administration.  Alas, we have the media that soap companies pay for, not one that we pay for.  There is however some reporting on the package -  this Washington Post piece on the stimulus by Paul Kane and Michael D. Shear sticks out for three reasons.  One, they actually try to explain some of the substance of the package and delve into the internal debates within the Democratic caucus and the Obama team.  It's basically a fight between people who want to build environmentally sustainable public works projects and those who want more roads and highways in exurban dying areas.  The advantage of building roads and highways is that you can put shovels in the ground today, the advantage of smart growth projects is that they are, well, better.  

Of course, it's the Blue Dogs who want roads and highways, and progressives and labor people who want sustainable infrastructure.

But the green-collar proposals have also come under fire. Hill, the incoming Blue Dog co-chairman, said he opposes including these proposals and the medical technology project in the stimulus plan, suggesting that "somewhere down the road" they be considered under the normal legislative process.
Matt Stoller :: Policy Splits on the Stimulus
As Nate Silver shows, the story is framed badly.  It pits environmentalists against normal people, even though clean energy is actually not just an 'environmental' concern but also has important economic and national security elements.  I would add one other criticism, which is that Republicans just aren't in the story at all, and neither are business interests.  In the story, the opposition to green projects is coming from Baron Hill, who leads the '51 Blue Dogs' that don't want green projects.  

While the story is framed as exploring the first 'internal struggle of the Obama administration', in fact it goes far beyond that and delves into the Democratic caucus and liberal interest groups.  Since Democrats do care about what Republicans think, and certainly see business interests as important, these perspectives should be brought into the story.  There's another more significant reason why Republican caucus politics matter to the Democratic caucus and to the ultimate policy outcomes.

As much as this stimulus splits Democrats, it also splits Republicans, and that is an important and appealing political prospect for the Obama team.  John Boehner doesn't believe the stimulus is necessary, conservatives hate it, but lots of Republicans are going to want a piece of the money and will vote for it.  Though I do like to see Republicans reduced to irrelevance, I don't think they actually are irrelevant when it comes to these debates, even the internal ones.  And it's not just because the incoming Transportation Secretary is a Republican.

It is interesting that it is the Blue Dogs who are pushing for roads and highways and against green initiatives.  This article is the first time I've seen the membership number of the new Blue Dog caucus in the next Congressional session.  The Blue Dogs don't update their website, and their admission process isn't public, so I've actually found this number surprisingly hard to find.  Last session, there were 49 Blue Dogs, and during the election season the caucus continually bragged about how they would add a substantial number of new members in 2009.  Still, their PAC didn't give to very many Democratic candidates, two Blue Dogs lost reelection, and a bunch of their candidate prospects lost.  If it's true that the Blue Dogs have only increased their number by 2, and I'm not sure it is, then they really are far weaker in the House than they were from 2006-2008.  There are 257 Democrats in the next Congress and 178 Republicans.  While the Blue Dogs are still a swing bloc, they only have 11 votes to give.  That's not very many, considering that this number assumes all Republicans always vote with the Blue Dogs.  If Republicans split off from their caucus on certain votes, even small numbers of Republicans, then Blue Dog priorities are far less likely to matter overall.


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Milwaukee (0.00 / 0)
The Democratic Gov. wants to expand the Interstate towards Chicago, the City Council wants tu use the Fed $ for  repairs to the generally decrepit streets.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/...



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.


Doyle threw everything he could find on his list (4.00 / 1)
His aides sent out e-mails to everyone they could think of to get projects that were "shovel ready" in a few months, and they put them on the list. There's nothing green about a wider I-94 -- in fact the ACLU has been fighting it on grounds it screws poor neighborhoods -- but apparently it's close enough to ready to go to qualify.

But one place Doyle didn't ask was the cities. Doyle disses the cities all the time, for some reason, and so his people don't talk to the cities. And lo and behold, it's the cities that run transit and use property taxes to pay for all the local roads, and they have some pretty important needs -- much more urgent than widening the damn Interstate.

A measure of the absurdity -- his stimulus wish list has more rail service between Chicago and Milwaukee, and new service from Milwaukee to Madison. But he wants to widen the parallel interstates at the same time, reducing the market for whatever rail eventually gets built.


[ Parent ]
States (4.00 / 2)
simply want the money to go into their economy. There is no planning involved, just anything they think they can do fast.

Hopefully the rail will happen but not I-94.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
Light Rail Would Be Nice (0.00 / 0)
Primary challenges might not work for these Blue Dogs. We may have to threaten to support third party candidates in certain districts. Choose one [only one] district where we could afford to lose the seat and give 100% support to an independent candidate that supports our goals. That candidate might not be with us on the social issues [the Blue Dogs aren't with us anyway], but she/he could do a lot to move the ball forward on the bread and butter issues as well as put fear into the Blue Dog career politicians.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what's the problem with the public health option?
LANDRIEU: Well, many of us believe, George, that it will undermine the private insurance system.



If you are going to support a third-party candidate (4.00 / 2)
The threat you need to be making is that you are willing to support a spoiler and throw the seat to the Republicans because you find the Blue Dog so unbearable.

Another alternative is finding a weird Republican you can live with, some sort of reverse Joe Lieberman.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Hard time finding green projects? (4.00 / 1)
The story sez:

Senior aides in the new administration and the congressional leadership... suggest that there have been delays in identifying enough of the environmentally friendly projects to reach a dollar level that will truly jump-start the economy.

Um... then maybe you should make some new projects yourselves. Start a Green WPA, or something.

Obama ran millions of ads on how he was going to create millions of green jobs, and now they are having a difficult time finding enough projects? Really? Aargh.


This is actually a real problem (4.00 / 6)
I work in this policy area and have been going crazy for weeks. The problem is that the quickest and surest way to get money out the door is to put it in already authorized programs. Because transportation for years has been funded at 80 percent for highways and 20 percent for transit, in part because most of the money comes from gas taxes, there are many more highway projects near the end of the pipeline ready for funding under the current, bizarrely named transportation act -- SAFTEA-LU. The stimulus will be general revenues, not gas taxes, so the 80 percent rule shouldn't apply -- not that it really should anyway -- but there really aren't enough "new starts" and rebuilds of transit projects ready to go.

The Energy Bill of 2007 had a Green WPA in it -- the Green Jobs Act. But because it was never funded, the Bush Department of Labor never wrote the rules for it, so it may not qualify as a current program eligible for stimulus money.

So the debate pits macroeconomic effects -- the Keynesian pump-priming that the stimulus is supposed to provide -- against new policy needed to green our infrastructure. To do the former you need money being spent right away. To do the latter, you need a little more time and a willingness to make good policy choices.

The latter seems clearly preferable -- those new highways will be with us for a long time, and they will make it much harder to meet climate and sustainability goals, and their long-term economic cost is staggering. Obama argues for "deliberate haste" in his transition process, and that's what we should have in this case.  


[ Parent ]
How much time? (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for your response. How much time do you think it would take for hte Green WPA to get out the door?

If the answer is two or three months, than I don't see any reason that part of the stimulus just can't be held until later on. Fund the stuff that is ready now, but don't use all of the money. Save some for the Green WPA.

If the answer is much longer, then I see the problem lawmakers are currently facing.  


[ Parent ]
not just think of something fast (4.00 / 2)
pass something fast

stimulus is not unrelated to long-term goals

but for stimulus to work (if it will) it is important to do it fast.  that means compromising.  that means doing things pretty much the way people are familiar with

"luckily" things are so screwed up that there is a lot of fixing unsafe bridges and such that can, and should be, done right away

besides, if you want a longterm strategy for building mass transit, do not make (the current) argument that more for mass transit must mean less for rural state roads

too many senators from rural states for that to win

just concentrate on getting more money for mass transit

since TARP, it is all monopoly money anyway


[ Parent ]
Not just pass (0.00 / 0)
Any real project requires planning, design, development, engineering and, ironically, environmental approval before a shovel can hit dirt.  California's high speed rail project is ready to go, but something similar on the east coast probably would take a few years before any real work could begin.

Of course, any project has a lag time unless it is literally just sitting around waiting for funding.  I assume fixing existing stuff like filling potholes and repaving exiting roads takes much less time, even if it isn't otherwise ready to go.  

Obama needs to focus on both quick spending and the best long term infrastructure projects.  In some cases there will be an overlap, which makes the choice trivial.  But in other cases I suspect there will be real tension between the two.  Since this is a multi-year stimulus package it seems possible to do both, if planned correctly.

It should also be pointed out that in some cases "lag time" still requires funding and creates a stimulus.  Engineers and planners must be hired as well as manual labor.


[ Parent ]
The reason (4.00 / 1)
why roads and bridges are faster to get started is because there is a commercial infrastructure that supports the underlying projects.  The government puts large construction projects out to bid.  There are a large number of firms that know how to bid roads and bridges.  The number of firms that now how to do the build green infstructure projects is far smaller.

Additionally, most of the projects on the list have gone through the various required approval processes (ie local government approval, environmental approval).  

And that's a problem.  We know that one mistake FDR made was that his stimulus was too small.  Obama has choosen to avoid that mistake and he is absolutely correct in doing so.  

I don't know what the correct resolution here:  but suggesting this is another example of Obama betraying the progressive cause verges on on self parody.  


[ Parent ]
Green Jobs timing (0.00 / 0)
Probably the money could flow to the Green Jobs Act in a few months. Even that, however, was never intended to be as big as the simulus is -- a few hundred million, which as you know is a rounding error in the thinking these days. You'd still need ready-to-go projects for people in the program to work on. So while having the GJA operational would clearly be a good thing -- would aid in retraining and providing career ladders for those at the bottom -- it would only be part of the solution.

[ Parent ]
The need for speed (0.00 / 0)
The sense I've gotten is that the Keynesian need for economic stimulus is time-sensitive, if your goal is to prevent a bad depression.

I think the tactic that best maximizes overall progressiveness is to have a lot of strings attached.  They can have their quickie funding for roads now if they commit to big spending on transit and other green infrastructure in the future.  If there are no projects ready to go, then progressives don't give up that much by compromising on phasing in a better split of highway vs transit funding than 80-20.  To do this, I think progressives have to hold stimulus hostage and insist on no additional infrastructure funding without a commitment in law to a change in future funding.  I don't know if House Democrats have that sort of brinksmanship in them.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we did not talk about time constraints. (4.00 / 1)
The impact of global warming is going to be much worse than losing World War II.  A few examples include rising sea levels flooding coastal cities, droughts due to changing rain and snow patterns, famine due to changing weather affecting farming, species extinctions growing exponentially, tropical diseases such as malaria traveling hundreds or thousands miles into the now temperate zones and much more.  

Here is one concrete example.  I have played around with an interactive map online and found that where I live in Richmond, CA will be underwater if sea level rises just 1 meter.  Since I have heard estimates of potential sea level rise from 6 to 10 meters, I live in a very vulnerable place.  You can find the interactive map at:
http://flood.firetree.net/

Green jobs created by funding mass transit to wean us off fossil fuels are one of the most important ways to slow carbon emissions and minimize global warming.  There should be no question about their pre-eminent importance.  

When policy people say that there are not enough transit projects ready to go, the issue needs to be reframed by all of us that the future of a world that we will find liveable is at stake because that is literally true.  

I understand that at this time, global warming seems somewhat abstract to most people.  By the time it is no longer abstract, it will be too late to stop it from happening.


[ Parent ]
of course more money should go for transit (4.00 / 4)
but even if they stuck with the 80/20 formula, it wouldn't be as horrible if they included a "fix-it first" requirement so that maintaining and repairing current infrastructure was the first priority (rather than new road construction).

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Problem with that (0.00 / 0)
DOTs simply shift money from maintenance projects they're planning to do into new capacity, and use the stimulus to fill the gap. It's a shell game that would require a fix it first policy with much more teeth than ever discussed to discourage.

[ Parent ]
Not surprising (4.00 / 1)
This shouldn't be surprising.  When Paul analyzed opinions the other week in Nate Silver's Curious Categorization of Obama's Policy Agenda, he showed that highway spending was the only infrastructure spending more strongly supported by conservatives than liberals.

In this case, results are mixed.  Support for spending on highways and bridges is actually strongest among conservatives, while spending on mass transit follows the more common pattern.



I can get a new economy project going faster than shovels (0.00 / 0)
Was it Matt or Chris that started personal political Google Ads? That's a new economy project, took about 3 seconds to start with near-immediate results.

The velocity of internet projects in terms of startup, adoption, dispersal of money, is just so much faster than any shovel-to-dirt project. Not that internet is the only thing. Bank transfers/loans/investments etc. include quite a lot of high velocity business.

The construction paradigm is simply familiar and it's tangible, and we like touching things. As far as a 2009 strategy, it might be necessary in a small part, but not as the prime mover.


Virtual Infrastructure (0.00 / 0)
Good point.  If what we're after is revenue growth, it may be worth considering creative design as an area worthy of subsidy.  Selling concept designs internationally via Second Life for instance, perhaps implementing traditional ad blitzing and branding, has the potential to bring in revenues as substantial as would manufacturing and exporting goods - but I think it would be a stretch to call it "green."

It seems to me a worthwhile area of focus - although some creativity might be required to harness it into an infrastructure framework - would be to develop carbon-fiber manufacture.  As light-weight and strong as it is, carbon-fiber is great for vehicular safety and efficiency.  (Consider the Tesla Roadster.)  It seems to me to be egregiously underutilized.  Plus, if I understand correctly, it serves as a means of carbon sequestration, with the potential to slow global warming.

(Incidentally, I loled at the Obama administration claim that we would "reverse global warming" since it seems to have begun with the agricultural revolution.)  


[ Parent ]
good luck stimulating out of a credit crunch (0.00 / 0)
Politicians are lying particularly benanke and economits like krugman have lost their minds. The government does not have enough power to hald the massive deflation process at had. The forces craming the valocity of money are to great. Each time a bank loses 1billion doallrs 15billion is taken out of circulation. As unemployment grows and consumer spending tightens even more and more businesses fail and more debt defaults and more banks contract lending... around we go and where it stops nobody knows. The govt can force banks to make bad loans. Americans have no interest in barrowing more. And throwing 1trillion in cash into the economy will not increase the velocity of money - the money will go into savings into paying down debt - its not going to circulate and its not going to take out the distrust or lending risk. But have fun trying

~* the * Will * to go on *~

maybe so (0.00 / 0)
but you can give unemployed people jobs

helps them

helps the economy somewhat

builds some stuff we need

what else may be necessary is daunting, no doubt


[ Parent ]
aftewre lots of reading the last month (0.00 / 0)
I've landed in the debt reduction camp. This is generally why I oppose almost all bailouts and doing thinka stimulous is going to help. I've joined those who think the way to end the pain is to clear the debt and that means lots of defaults from mortgages to big banks. I'm not sure I even favor the govt bothering with mortgage refinancing any more even under draconian terms for home howners who are over extended - the redefault rates are so high over 50% - so refinancing is jsut dragging out the pain. I'm more infavor of seeing the govt use 1trillion to creat brand new banks with clean balance sheets and then ipo them. Let goldman and citibank et al liquitade. The their crap parts die. The shake out will be painful no doubt but it will be much fastere and then we can got on with natural growth not hpony ditch digging.

I'm totally in favor of increasing unemployment benfits so that people don't starve - but they may have to rent aftere thei homes are forclosed. Id rather see unemploymenenfits for all than propping up crap auto comapaniess for a particular class of workers.

Congress also might get on with dealing with global wage arbitrage instead of pretending 1billion chinese are not a problem for labor in the us

~* the * Will * to go on *~


[ Parent ]
unless oil rebounds green will be postponed (0.00 / 0)
I don't see how the private sector invest in and or wants to consume green .  And I imagine if things get bad enough tax payers will revolt against subsidies for green. I see green energy gwenerally postponed for five years. Id like to hear someone economically make the argument how green will be competative while oil is under 70 a barrel.

I'm not saying buring oil isn't a problem environmentally. I'm saying a depression with oil being very cheap consumers don't care.

~* the * Will * to go on *~


It provides jobs (0.00 / 0)
so it will raise wages.  It should be subsidized.  

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search