$100 billion proposal to save city workers jobs

READ WHAT I WROTE MORON.

As I stated, you accomplish NOTHING other than yet ANOTHER stop gap. It does NOTHING to stop the states from needing more money yet again in six months or a year etc.... IT IS NOT A SOLUTION.

It is intended to be a stopgap. The goal is for the economy to recover sufficient to increase government receipts to pre-recession levels and the states would resultantly have funding sufficient to keep people employed without federal support.

IF you use a STOP gap... like TARP for example... you HAVE to make sure the Fed is not going to have to continue shelling out more and more money.

I understand the point. The reality is that the federal government isn't going to shell out any money at all. This is simply a theoretical debate and I agree that it is best to include provision to blunt the moral hazard that otherwise results from rewarding bad behavior.

Also... you could take the money and prop up PRIVATE sector jobs the same way... with the SAME results. So why do it for the states and not the private sector? Oh yeah, because there are more union lemmings jobs at stake on the public side and corporations are da evilllz.

Doing what you propose, direct transfer payments to private corporations, is a non-starter for pretty much everyone who agrees with the basic tenants of capitalism. The problems that arise from the federal government picking and choosing which private companies are to be rewarded with direct transfer payments to keep from firing employees, except for tax changes that apply uniformly across the board to all private employers, are not present in the public sector. That's why what is done with states is not done for private employers.
 
Increased compared to what? If public employment increased as a result of people being re-hired after being laid off due to budget cutbacks then the goal was achieved.
Ok, let's play this game. Sure they cut spending and likely some jobs in the 2 quarters prior to this but OVERALL they are still up in government jobs because in 2008 they boosted it by more than they cut in the 2 quarters where it declined, just like they had in every other quarter prior for quite a long time:
State and local spending are on the rise (annual rate, change from previous quarter):

2008, First quarter 5%
2008, Second quarter 7.70%
2008, Third quarter 4.80%
2008, Fourth quarter -8.30%
2009, First quarter -2.60%
2009, Second quarter 4.80%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis



That article is from 2005. Yes, the Republicans pissed away money on pork projects instead of responding to critical infrastructure needs of the country.

Can you present any credible evidence that infrastructure is in good shape? Any at all? Or is a 2005 article about Republicans passing pork-laden bills the best you can do?
Dolt, I was talking about the last big Transportation Bill which was in 2005.

And once again you are trying to deceive, there was I think 2 or 3 Dems that voted against it and about 5 Repubs that voted against it, so claiming it was "the Republicans" is the same dishonest shit that got Dems into power in the last election where they tried to highlight how Repubs are bad on spending and pay no attention to the fact that the Dems are worse.

As you can see, even before Obama, the outlays for the transportation budget have increased year-over-year
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budget/fy2008/transportation.html
So your argument that infrastructure is neglected and not in good shape is bullshit.
 
Ok, let's play this game. Sure they cut spending and likely some jobs in the 2 quarters prior to this but OVERALL they are still up in government jobs because in 2008 they boosted it by more than they cut in the 2 quarters where it declined, just like they had in every other quarter prior for quite a long time:
State and local spending are on the rise (annual rate, change from previous quarter):

2008, First quarter 5%
2008, Second quarter 7.70%
2008, Third quarter 4.80%
2008, Fourth quarter -8.30%
2009, First quarter -2.60%
2009, Second quarter 4.80%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

"Spending" is not equivalent to "employment."


Dolt, I was talking about the last big Transportation Bill which was in 2005.

And once again you are trying to deceive, there was I think 2 or 3 Dems that voted against it and about 5 Repubs that voted against it, so claiming it was "the Republicans" is the same dishonest shit that got Dems into power in the last election where they tried to highlight how Repubs are bad on spending and pay no attention to the fact that the Dems are worse.

As you can see, even before Obama, the outlays for the transportation budget have increased year-over-year
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budget/fy2008/transportation.html
So your argument that infrastructure is neglected and not in good shape is bullshit.


Spending doesn't tell you whether infrastructure is in good shape. It just means that money is spent. Whether that money is sufficient to meet the needs of the nation's infrastructure is the question. And, I would point out, that "transportation" is not interchangeable with "infrastructure" much like "employment" and "spending" are not interchangeable.

Here:

More than a quarter of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Leaky pipes lose an estimated seven billion gallons of clean drinking water every day. And aging sewage systems send billions of gallons of untreated wastewater cascading into the nation’s waterways each year.

These are among the findings of a report to be released Wednesday by the 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.

The society had planned to release the report in March, but moved it up to try to influence the debate over the $825 billion economic stimulus bill being negotiated by the Obama administration and Congress. Advocates for greater investment in public works projects have expressed disappointment that less than a third of the current proposal — which could be approved by the House on Wednesday — would be spent on infrastructure, and an even smaller part of that would go toward traditional concrete-and-steel projects like roads and transit.

“Crumbling infrastructure has a direct impact on our personal and economic health, and the nation’s infrastructure crisis is endangering our future prosperity,” the president of the society, D. Wayne Klotz, said in a statement. “Our leaders are looking for solutions to the nation’s current economic crisis. Not only could investment in these critical foundations have a positive impact, but if done responsibly, it would also provide tangible benefits to the American people, such as reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality, clean and abundant water supplies and protection against natural hazards.”

The current stimulus plan is weighted toward tax cuts, aid to the states, and an expanded safety net for people struggling to make ends meet. Much of the infrastructure spending it does contain would be in unusual areas. The plan devotes money to creating a database of health records, for example, and would spend more money making federal buildings energy-efficient than on repairing roads and bridges. In part this is because of questions about how soon major building projects can begin, because the goal of the bill is to inject money into the parched economy as quickly as possible.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, which has been sounding the alarm about the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure for years, and whose members would benefit from a major new investment in building and repair projects, paints a bleak picture of the state of the nation’s roads, transit systems, aviation system and levees. And it warned that in area after area, spending was being far outpaced by needs.

The society gave the nation’s roads a D-minus, noting that Americans are spending an estimated 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic and that 45 percent of major urban highways are congested. Transit and aviation did not fare much better, getting D grades. The society noted that while mass transit use increased 25 percent from 1995 to 2005, nearly half of American households still lacked access to bus or rail transit. And it said that the increasing delays faced by airline passengers highlighted the need to modernize the outdated air traffic control system.

For the first time, this year the group examined the nation’s levees, and gave them a D-minus. The report warned that many of the nation’s levees were built more than 50 years ago to protect crops, but now protect communities. It warned that the cost of repairing and rehabilitating them could exceed $100 billion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28projects.html
 
"Spending" is not equivalent to "employment."
It is usually synonymous with it. By the same token I could say that despite the president's wish for the money to go to "save" city/state government jobs, they could still well use it for other things. In other words YOUR spending increases are not equivalent to employment either, though like the ones I mentioned they are usually synonymous with it.

Spending doesn't tell you whether infrastructure is in good shape. It just means that money is spent. Whether that money is sufficient to meet the needs of the nation's infrastructure is the question. And, I would point out, that "transportation" is not interchangeable with "infrastructure" much like "employment" and "spending" are not interchangeable.

Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28projects.html
I actually saw this when I was doing research recently. Essentially you are counting on the findings from those whose jobs depend on their being problems.

It's a bit like asking car repairmen how well the cars on the road are in terms of being in shape and making sure they know that their answer will help determine how much overall business they will get. Would you trust them?

I've heard many Europeans and Canadians comment on how much better the roads are in the US (and they are from my own comparisons in visiting other countries). Yet they are not pushing such ridiculous levels of infrastructure spending.
 
It is usually synonymous with it. By the same token I could say that despite the president's wish for the money to go to "save" city/state government jobs, they could still well use it for other things. In other words YOUR spending increases are not equivalent to employment either, though like the ones I mentioned they are usually synonymous with it.

No, they are not usually synonymous. Here's a chart of federal government employment from 1962 to 2008. Over that period federal government employment decreased by about 12%. According to you, based on these figures we could say that the federal government spending decreased by 12% over the same period since spending and employment are equivalent. But, that is not the case at all.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

And George Miller could easily draft the legislation to require the money to go to employment.


I actually saw this when I was doing research recently. Essentially you are counting on the findings from those whose jobs depend on their being problems.

It's a bit like asking car repairmen how well the cars on the road are in terms of being in shape and making sure they know that their answer will help determine how much overall business they will get. Would you trust them?

I've heard many Europeans and Canadians comment on how much better the roads are in the US (and they are from my own comparisons in visiting other countries). Yet they are not pushing such ridiculous levels of infrastructure spending.


OK, if you don't want to take the word of civil engineering professionals who are in a position to assess the state of the country's infrastructure, at least present some plausible alternative source that supports your position. Until then, I'm not inclined to debate this further.
 
THIS is what needs to be done with the stimulus money. Couple it with tax credits to small businesses for increasing employment ranks. Both are a part of the 'stimulus' but neither are what they need to be. These should be the top two areas of spending. Enough of the stop gaps. Stop gaps are necessary at the beginning, but you can't keep focusing on them.


“Stop gap” is a loaded word, that doesn’t have much meaning outside the world of punditry and opinion. One person’s “stop gap” is an absolute necessity to another person. As far as I can remember we passed a dozen or so “emergency supplemental” budget authorizations to fund Bush’s trillion dollar blunder in Iraq, and other than Ron Paul, I don’t recall a single republican braying in protest against it.

A state can’t operate without public services which are, in large measure, provided by public employees. In addition, infrastructure spending allocated to private entities doesn’t just get doled out blindly and forgotten about. Because of the 200 year history of corporate corruption regarding government contracts, there are strict rules in place for civil servants – representatives of the taxpayer – providing oversight on these contracts. Grant management, site inspections, making sure the laws and regulations are complied with. I can tell you something for 100% certain. If you just hand a big pile of cash over to a company or corporation, and simply walk away, it’s going to get abused. Halliburton in Iraq, or the Truman Commission in WW2 are all I need to say about that.

Do the states and municipalities share blame in how they managed their budgets? No doubt. However, I’m not prone to place all the blame for the nation’s economic woes on mayors and governors. 8 years of Bush republican economics, supplemented by a long-standing and perverse obsession with deregulation and trusting the magical free hand of the “markets” to work its economic nirvana was the fuel that enabled this conflagration to burn out of control. Some mayor in San Francisco or Kansas City is not to blame for idiots in power listening to the nonsensical blatherings of the CATO institute, or Heritage Foundation.

As far as I can tell, most states have furloughed their civil work force, cut the salaries, and I’m assuming that’s also the case in many cities and counties. They’ve already taken their hits. Now, if they were still going on wild spending binges, I’d have a problem with forking over 100 billion dollars. But, it’s not like they are acting like the arrogant Halliburton or Wall Street Banks, and simply taking our money and using it to pay bonuses to executives or to pad their investment gimmicks.

Without knowing all the details, I can’t say if everything in this proposal is a great idea. But, given that Keynesian economics helped us avert yet another republican great depression, I don’t have any problem at all funding state and local services with emergency supplemental, as long as they are cutting back and furloughing to the extent they can.
 
Back
Top