Driving Behind the Ambulance
We've all been there. Stuck in a highway traffic jam, we hear an ambulance approaching from behind. We do our best to squeeze over to make room, finally connecting the traffic jam to an accident up ahead that we can't quite see. We are grateful that we're not the ones needing the ambulance, and then grief turns to anger as we see that one jerk who decides that it is just fine to sneak into the wake of the ambulance to drive ahead of the rest of us.
This is how I view the legislators who have loaded up the stimulus bills moving their way through Congress with giveaways, whether useless projects or unnecessary tax cuts.
I thought the President acquitted himself quite well in his press conference last evening. He has done enough to try to bring Republicans into his coalition. It is clear that as a group, they have no constructive ideas about what to put in the bill. But they are not wrong that there are plenty of expenditures in the bills that have little to do with economic stimulus or the general welfare (as opposed to narrow interests).
So what should Obama do? He does have a staff of thousands at his disposal in the Economic Office of the President and the Cabinet departments. Put them to work flagging every piece of wasteful spending in the bills that head to conference. And then borrow a page from Senator McCain's campaign playbook -- make those who continue to argue for the wasteful spending famous. Label them the ones who drive behind the ambulance.
Better, but not less?
First, it would be nice to articulate what the criteria is for "wasteful" provisions: "useless projects and unnecessary tax cuts." Some on the left seem to think any spending at this time is useful, and some on the right seem to think there is no such thing as an unnecessary tax cut. We need a simple criteria that the public should be able to understand, which resists false categorization and the attendant demagoguery.
Second, how should the elimination of "wasteful" spending affect the total size of the package. That is, should the dollars intended for "wasteful" projects get plowed back into those that do result in economic stimulus and add to general welfare. Are you suggesting the same size package ($800bn) with better composition or is this simply a mechanism to shrink the overall stimulus. To me, it seems we want to do the former.
No earmarks
Obama noted that there are no earmarks a la "bridge to nowhere" in the bill. So I'm not sure where the wasteful projects are listed, since there are no specific earmarks in the bill. As far as I know the specific projects haven't been defined yet.
" make those who continue to argue for the wasteful spending famous. Label them the ones who drive behind the ambulance."
Yes. The transparency Obama is putting in place is designed to do this . . . I'm looking forward to all the details of projects as they are posted on recovery.gov so that the public can actually track all the spending. His campaign made excellent use of technology, and he continues to do it in groundbreaking ways. We can make this information accessible to all Americans.
One man's stimulus is another man's pork
I agree 100% with your assessment re: the blatant opportunism displayed in this bill. The problem is identifying "wasteful spending". I think we agree that if we are going to spend the money,especially given that we are borrowing it from our grandchildren, it would be better to spend it on things that will help our economy be more efficient--and which might be around for a few decades. However, I can at least understand the theory that if the design of this bill is to stimulate the economy now, what difference does it make if the money goes into the hands of an engineer or a ballet teacher?
Re: the Republican reluctance to sign on-- many of us are skeptical that this spending will help. I'd rather see modification of the rules that got us into this position, a lot more enforcement of the existing rules, tax cuts and government spending cuts.
But this is what happens when the people you send to DC don't do their job (see W, DeLay, etc)--you lose elections and you lose the power to do things the way you think the should be done. But that doesn't mean you have to sign on to a plan you think is more likely to hurt than help.
Capital Projects
These are all good issues to raise. They are the reason why I've been advocating a capital budget, or at least a prioritized list of capital projects, for over a year. Estimates of needed infrastructure expansion and repairs exceed $1 trillion, and those don't include all of what would be required to improve the electric grid. It is also why I've criticized attempts to justify spending that is timely, targeted, and temporary -- that tends to get more pork, less valuable projects.
useless
When the goal is to spend money, how can a project be useless unless for some reason the money doesn't get spent. I suppose the classic example would be money targeted at development projects in Iraq where only ten cents on the dollar got spent. Besides, our nation has been running on deferred maintenance in the public sector for way too long. Too much money has been wasted in the private sector while we have stinted on education, transportation, research, energy, and so on. The private sector is inefficient and can't handle long term investment. Let's waste some money in the public sector for a while.
I don't worry about a leak in my hose when I'm watering my lawn.