Infrastructure For The Future, Stimulus For Now
Commenter CStanley pointed out this article and said:
Actually, I’d make the case that there should be three separate bills- one would be the short term relief package (increasing disbursements to states for unemployment benefits, for instance), one should be the stimulus for short term job creation/preservation (like those shovel ready infrastructure projects everyone’s talking about and most people agree on), and one should be the long range plan for investments like energy projects.
I agree wholeheartedly. I haven’t heard much about state assistance (if someone has please note what’s been talked about) but many states have run out of unemployment insurance and California will be bankrupt next week; unless something changes they will have to give out IOUs for welfare and tax refunds. This is threatening to be an honest to goodness crisis, and even if those issues are temporarily resolved, we can expect them to get much worse over the coming year and need to have a plan.
I feel that our infrastructure of all types (transportation, energy, informational, educational) is in shambles, and rebuilding it over the next 10-15 years is one of the number one priorities for ensuring a successful America in the decades to come. In no way can it be addressed with a one-off bill, especially one that is so scattershot in its focus. I don’t know anything about the American Society for Civil Engineers, but they claim we will need a $2.2 trillion investment in basic infrastructure over the next five years.
And as AustinRoth pointed out: “And what did the CBO find?: The debt service alone from the stimulus will cost about $347 billion over the next 10 years. As the letter dryly notes: “Such costs are not included in CBO’s cost estimates for individual pieces of legislation and are not counted for Congressional scorekeeping purposes.”"
There is absolutely no way that we can run deficits greater than a trillion dollars for many years or else we are going to overburdened just paying back the debt. We are at a crossroads where we must make hard choices and slash large parts of the government that are ineffective or overreaching (cough agricultural subsidies, the drug war and the global military presence come to mind instantly) while reforming the programs that are kept and deciding how much to continue throwing at the financial system. Only then can we talk reasonably about very long term infrastructural plans.
34 Responses to “Infrastructure For The Future, Stimulus For Now”
There is no question that we are grossly overstretched. However, the “common defense” is one of the few constitutionally mandated roles for the federal government. No doubt, there is waste in the Defense Department, but we should be very wary of making deep cuts. Otherwise, we will end up in a late '70s situation like we had under President Carter, with a demoralized military that was unable to respond to pressing military objectives.
I think there are a lot of military cuts that can and should be made but then those would probably only offset other areas where increases are necessary (for proper funding for decent wages for military members and for their healthcare.)
I hate to criticize when you posted this specifically in agreement with you, Mikkel, but I've got to say that your list of suggested cuts is a bit lopsided toward the liberal viewpoint instead of offering across the board suggestions that might not be popular with the left or the right.
“There is absolutely no way that we can run deficits greater than a trillion dollars for many years or else we are going to overburdened just paying back the debt. We are at a crossroads where we must make hard choices and slash large parts of the government that are ineffective or overreaching …”
Yes, we wish to avoid a debt trap, and while liberals will dismiss, as they have before, the “great deficit scare” [!], and argue in favor of debt as expressed as fraction of GDP, we cannot continue to run enormous deficits, which Obama and the Democrats want to make far larger than what happened under Republican [mis-]administration.
No, we don't want to rush to loot the Defense Department, even though there are huge cuts that can be made in the area of size of some weapons programs, and even with termination of some weapons programs. May they not be ended simply to loot Defense to spend the money on other things, much less for liberal political reasons (the constitutional role of Defense — since when did constitutional propriety matter to the Democrats and nowdays to Republicans since the 1930s? — and the Defense Department in general, programs like missile defense in particular).
And while infrastructure spending is probably the kind of spending (public works) that is less controversial to Republicans as well as to Democrats, and can make Republicans more amenable to approving stimulus legislation (the way they were bought off by the recent bank bailout after initial rejection of the bailout), featuring tangible objects throughout the nation, even this kind of spending (public works) is not unquestioned, nor has it been uniformly and always effective:
http://newslet.iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ssj17/ssj17.pdf
Obama is wise to work with Republicans, a few of which at least seem to be listening to the public, or at least their public (those whose votes cannot be easily and cheaply bought). The extent of, and additional desires of, Democrats in Washington and the many activists for spending is alarming. Getting the Republicans to agree mitigates criticism of any failures later, but more importantly, it's needed if Obama wants to be successful over the next four years, not four days or four weeks. Also, while the Democrats have more power than they appear to realize they have, or know how to use, they stand to gain even more power in two years — but they won't be in power forever.
What's intriguing to me is that the Democrats could co-opt the Republicans on the issue of tax reductions by insisting on a reduction not for primarily a segment of the population only (the Bush tax cuts as pictured by so many), but on a reduction for everyone. Others have made noise about a suspension of the payroll tax. This is irresponsible; but in thinking of this, I foresaw something the Democrats could try someday, if they made progress now. A favorite strategy (not merely a tactic) of liberal politicians is to funnel tax revenue into a single “general” fund, and appropriate from this. In the case of the federal government, Obama and the Democrats could eventually end the payroll tax (rather than merely eliminate the “cap” on it, which will merely postpone the failure of Social Security for a few years, achieve nothing else), and then make funding of Social Security “mandatory.” This in itself is simply appealing to shallow liberal voters; making it mandatory in no way magically guarantees its life forever — sufficient tax revenue needs to be raised. But this is in line with the moral “shaving” sought by so many on the Left, namely to base funding of desired programs on progressive taxes, especially on income, and perhaps someday a wealth tax as well, in the name of stimulating spending (the same way a “carry tax” on currency would work — as is experienced by laboratory experimental animals subject to electric shocks to prod them to do this or that).
This, arising from, or even in the name of, tax relief for all, or primarily for lower-income citizens.
Additional revenue could be had by levying a tax (convenient-religion carbon tax, say) on motor vehicle fuels eventually, which is a potentially huge revenue raiser (even if people reduce their driving).
Think of it — deficits and enormous debt for ages, buying votes for ages, getting the Republicans to cooperate by offering them public works.
Then, in the long term, inflation, the ultimate opiate of the masses, to ease the pain the debt causes. It's also possible coming out of this slump or used as a later-time resort in order to force us out of the slump, but the Dems probably are counting on getting out of the slump before resorting to inflation as a “necessity.”
“I think there are a lot of military cuts that can and should be made but then those would probably only offset other areas where increases are necessary (for proper funding for decent wages for military members and for their healthcare.)”
Procurement is a bad area in Defense, and there are some high-cost programs that consume much and merit reduction or even complete termination, but I am cynical and the burden of proof is on the “cutters” to show they are doing the reductions for valid reasons, not simply to loot Defense to spend the money on the NEA, on the current equivalent of “midnight basketball,” or to reduce or end programs simply out of blind political opposition to it (missile defense, the object of much mentally ill behavior by its opponents).
Hilarious. I remember sometime in the last two years being told that Bush's budget deficits weren't that bad if you looked at it in terms of GDP. Mmmmmkay.
Right now we're paying for a few things:
A) The Republican rush to deregulate the financial industry
B) The bipartisan push to expand the real estate bubble
C) Republican looting of our treasury.
It's unfortunate that the debt will be going higher, and obviously it can't go on forever. But since Bush refused to continue the fiscal conservative course set in the 1990s by Clinton and Newt Gingrich, we are where we are and deficits are necessary unless we want to go into a 15 year recession.
Are we constitutionally required to spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military? Also, I'd like to see that idea of “common defense” taken to heart. Perhaps a reduced military capacity would limit our forays into the the land of offense.
But we obviously can't quickly dismantle the military industrial complex, lest we deepen the recession.
Are we constitutionally required to spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military?
No, that part is because we idiotically assumed the role of the world's police force when Europe abdicated any responsibility for its own defense and spent their own money on their welfare systems. Unfortunately, even if we now want to reverse that course it's going to take some time to undo it.
It all depends what our purpose is. We currently have bases in something like 160 countries, and spend $1 trillion (if you include the wars) per year, which is over twice as much as the rest of the world combined. Cutting troops' benefits, supplies or equipment is a terrible idea I agree…but reevaluating our global presence and weapons systems (like DLS brings up) I think we can reasonably cut 30% of Defense spending, which is a large chunk of change.
Well yes it's lopsided, but that's because it's what's most obvious based on my priorities, and things that I strongly disagree with in whole. I don't disagree that there are many cuts to be made for “liberal” programs — perhaps even the sum will be larger than what I mentioned — but those points to me are a lot more subtle and more about how to do things in a way that isn't wasteful. I for one am open to people's suggestions on things that they care more strongly than I do about…to me that's what bipartisanship is about.
I would tend to disagree that my criticisms are inherently liberal in nature. Sure they are closer to the liberal establishment than the conservative establishment, but a lot of the most fully throated criticisms of everything I mentioned come from non-establishment conservatives. Andrew Bacevich is an excellent example of a very conservative figure that is immensely concerned with the current role of the military. Daniel Larison is another. I think they have very pointed criticisms of the establishment (both conservative and liberal pet topics) that I agree with strongly, even while I wholeheartedly disagree with them about the source of their thinking, which is highly religious and traditional in nature.
I'm also interested in this as it seems to be a fundamental questioning of our defense complex from career insiders.
As for agricultural subsidies…liberals, conservatives, scientists, nutrition experts, etc. all hate them. How are they still around?
I'm sure there is room for cuts there, perhaps even a net cut if the waste is seriously addressed. But we made the mistake of cutting too much (the peace dividend) after the fall of the USSR and I'd want to be quite sure that we don't make the same mistake again.
“But we made the mistake of cutting too much (the peace dividend) after the fall of the USSR and I'd want to be quite sure that we don't make the same mistake again.”
Really? I don't see a mistake with the possible exception that we didn't cut the military enough.
Or did I miss the invasion and occupation?
Davebo,
Maybe someone is too worried about Mexican immigrants? Or do they see jihadists behind every corner and under their children's beds…
chris: Your comment (assuming the 'someone' means me since I'm the one who made the original comment) is especially offensive since I'm the mother of a Latin American son (and for the record, I was strongly in support of the McCain immigration bill in 06 or whenever it was.)
And no, Davebo, fortunately we haven't been occupied but we did experience an attack which led to the Afghanistan invasion (did you approve of that?) And somewhere along the lines our troops were experiencing shortages of protective equipment like body armor. I predict that you'll respond to that by saying that this happened after the (in your opinion) unnecessary Iraq invasion, but if we were spread that thin then there was a problem that should have been addressed proactively instead of waiting for an invasion or occupation. Funny thing about defense, if one doesn't do it ahead of time then it's usually too late.
Sorry CStanley… bad joke rescinded and removed.
But seriously. I don't think the mild cuts to defense spending in the 90s led to 9/11. I would actually blame our proactive idea of defense (aka offense) that has entangled us in the Middle East, much the detriment of the average people there.
LOL, apology accepted, and I find myself in rare agreement with that comment that you inserted when you edited your joke (just kidding.)
I didn't say that the military cuts led to 9/11- my point is that it led to us being unprepared to fight back after that attack occurred (again, I know you and others will disagree that we had to go to Iraq after Afghanistan- but I think even the Afghanistan invasion revealed some of our weakness and left us unable to engage whenever that became necessary (you should always have some reserve capacity.)
And of course we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not our 'entanglements' were the root cause of Islamic terrorism.
Yeah that's fair. There are entire branches of the executive (like department of education) that I have little idea what they do…and that's even being around a lot of teachers who would know if anyone.
Um, prior to 9/11, what “proactive idea of defense” are you referring to? The first 9 months of Bush II? Not much happened then. Clinton? Bush I? Reagan? A lot then, but we were far from alone.
Want to go back to the CIA involvement re-instating the Peacock Throne in Iran? Further> If you are going to go through history shopping for meddling in the Middle East, please make sure you add England, France, Russia, Germany and Italy as players with as significant amounts of blood on their hands as we have on ours, if not even more in some cases.
Hey – is Michael Stickings reading this thread? Are CS and I showing our hatred for Americans too?
It seems to me that if you want to look at root causes which resulted from US actions, if anything it was more our diplomatic actions which were based on realpolitik and containment of Soviet Union by allying with dictators, as well as our support of Israel against Arab aggression. I guess our military bases around the world were the muscle that backed up that diplomacy, but I still think it's a stretch to blame the size and reach of our military.
AR,
I don't for a second think that our other imperialist friends are free from guilt. Nor are those countries free from terrorism.
But my point was specifically about why we draw the ire of Middle East terrorists. On that list, we've got Iraq, our unquestioning support of Israel and by extension their treatment of the Palestinians, our support for Middle East dictators like the House of Saud and the Shah, etc.
AR: I think Stickings is probably laying low for a while to try to ensure that casualobserver loses his bet.
Probably not a surprise, Mikkel, that I'm about 180 degrees from your opinion about dismantling the standing army, and I'd be really, really surprised if you could find any military strategist who would support that idea at all (and I don't just mean that from the self preservation angle, but on principle.)
It's not dismantling the standing army, just making its sole aim to protect the homeland. And I think you'd be surprised…
e.g. this and this represent a strong strand of military thought that has eroded, again due to the Cold War. Also see Eisenhower's comments about the military-industrial complex, and here is an entire book that while not as radical as I say, calls for a complete reevaluation of which weapon systems to adopt and when to adopt them.
It's not dismantling the standing army, just making its sole aim to protect the homeland.
Hey, this bipartisan negotiating has potential……..if you want to set up the isolationist arm of the fiscal conservative party, I'm happy to be your first member. Although, we need to work on your propensity to want to increase social spending.
My views are based on how I perceive the larger environment. I might have had different beliefs about the role of the military during the Cold War (even while criticizing engagements like Vietnam war and our South American meddling) because of the threat posed by the USSR and company. I would have definitely been against isolationism during the mid 30s, probably starting around '35-36 when it became clear Hitler was up to no good [and I'm trying to be intellectually honest when I say that. I'm not even sure if I'd be for the Union "starting" the civil war, or the colonists having the Revolutionary War...so]. But now I see no reason for us to act like we are.
Same thing for social spending. I think that the evidence is in that global peak oil is going to hit within the next 10-12 years; that global warming is a huge problem; that we are barely literate in math, science and reading; that our corporations have neglected their civic duty to care for their workforce and have a culture of corruption; that our electrical and informational grid could fail at any time; our top 1% has so much wealth that it hurts our economy; and that overall we need to make a severe adjustment in lifestyle and our country's aims. I think that increased social spending is that best way to enable that if done correctly.
If we were energy independent; our corporations were run responsibly and renewed their relationship to their employees; our citizens could add 2+2; our electrical/information grid was secure and open to sources large and small; our wealth disparity was decreased…..then I would be for much less social spending and drastically smaller government.
Believe it or not, I actually agree with mikkel and casual. Eisenhower was right – he knew who the main internal enemy was.
A standing army with just the abilities and capabilities to defend the US, rather than levels to support two simultaneous fronts for wars anywhere in the world, is a much saner use of our money and resources. So much of our HUGE military budget goes to defending our 'friends' abroad, and relieving them of the burden of their own defense.
This may be the crisis that finally forces us to confront that reality, and if it our current model is sustainable. Conversely, though, I still support actions such as Iraq, which have national strategic objectives (oil).
I don't disagree in the long run, AR- but I don't see how we get there in just a few years. Seems to me that there has to be a slow process of disengaging from our responsibilities to protect Europe, as we ask them to step up to the plate.
Well AR is right, every nation has a responsibility to do the best to defend itself from external threats. Although I think nearly every European country is fully capable of defending themselves, especially considering the lack of current threats. And Korea and Japan as well.
Secondly, while I'm not George Washingtonesque about being against all “entanglements” I do think we should be very careful whom we become allies with. I am disturbed by how much the modern rules of war have formalized them as another political tool. If an ally is attacked and has their existence threatened then I would be for full mobilization and entering the war to “play for keeps” (i.e. fight until unconditional surrender). Even if we had a drastically smaller force, it's not like we couldn't provide assistance to the country until we could bring our newly christened army to the front.
CS – of course. I was not advocating cutting our nose off to spite our face.
As a side note, supposed we did indeed announce a 10 or 15 year plan to pull out of NATO, etc.? What would the reaction and outcome be?
After the initial glee of the America haters, as the sobering reality hit home, I bet a lot of our fair weather friends would try and convince us that was still sunny, and we should hang around. Then they would REALLY hate us, then semi-anarchy may occur, and finally, life would imitate art:
“…and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'no.'”
Marc Ambinder makes the case the Republican support for the stimulus package.
Except, of course, there was no Republican support. And 12 Democrats that voted against it.
The New Age of Obama Bi-Partisanship has dawned!
It's true, there was no Republican support. Ambinder is making the case that there should have been Republican support.
Here's the link again, if anyone would like to read it.
As far as bi-partisan ship goes, the Republicans have decided not to give it a try. It seems to me that Republicans have chosen to make the economic emergency nothing but more politics, not a problem they're interested in solving.
They're still being Bushian.
Right?
mikkel,
After the collapse of the I-35 bridge our responsible representatives in Congress and our president, George Bush, led the way in finding a way to immediately begin working for the necessary repairs across the country. Oh, that's right. No, they didn't. There were studies showing how badly the work is needed but not much else. Frankly, without the impetus of using the current crisis our politicians suck at doing anything for the long term good of our country, mostly because most of their constituents aren't any better about thinking about the long term. Honestly, part of me thinks that a little bit of “bait and switch”, including longer term work with short term injections is the lesser “evil”.
Glad to see you have joined 'the ends justify the means' club, Jim.
Soon you will find yourself supporting torture by the Obama administration.
Context, AR, context. Torture and destroying most of the Constitution is miles from bundling a combination of short, medium and long term economic stimulus together. If the Republicans had the brains to actually go past a simple two word answer for everything in the universe maybe it would be different. But they don't and won't for the foreseeable future.