This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 5, 2009.
Stimulating Prospects
$44 million in 120 days. A lot of money, very little time.
That's part of the amount that Vermont will be receiving under the stimulus package passed by Congress two weeks ago, and in order to get projects underway quickly, Vermont must decide where that $44 million will go in just a few months: use it or lose it.
The term "shovel-ready" has become ubiquitous, so much so that it has already entered the popular vernacular. The Vermont Agency of Transportation already has an $85 million list of thirty shovel-ready projects, including the Richmond bridge and the Bennington bypass.
Luckily, Vermont is slated to get a total of about $125 million in transportation money in the long run, so all of the state's transportation priorities should get funding.
All together, our federal lawmakers have said that Vermont will be the beneficiary of about $1 billion in stimulus money. Aside from the $125 million for transportation projects, there will also be funds for Medicaid, for job creation programs, and for education spending.
Williston has its own shovel-ready project, and I don't mean the Williston portion of the Circ Highway. The construction of the Allen Brook school expansion could solve many of the town's problems with education.
The temporary classrooms would become an historical curiosity and not a point of contention with the Development Review Board; the Frameworks Committee would be able to heartily recommend the physical separation of grades 1-4 and 5-8; and the town would have plenty of room for future enrollment, when the economy bounces back and housing construction begins anew.
Of course, Williston will have to compete with the rest of the state for funds, but we do have Chittenden County on our side. With a project as large as a school expansion, and a labor base as large as the county's, a large infusion of cash seems logical. Logical, but far from certain. So, we should not count our infrastructure dollars before they're doled out.
The stimulus package will certainly not be a panacea, much as we would like it to be. It will be a stop-gap measure, hopefully a stepping stone on the way to recovery. And it does not help everyone - there is no money, for example, for dairy farmers hit hard by plummeting milk prices.
Some, of course, question the need for or the logic of having the stimulus package at all. It is a fair question - but those who ask it had no problem stimulating the economy of Halliburton and its ilk for six years, pouring billions in "temporary spending" into a permanent state of war.
I put no stock in the counter arguments - it is our time to bear the fruits of our labor.
Our congressional delegation will be holding meetings throughout Vermont to explain the details further. The first and biggest will be held by Senator Patrick Leahy and Governor Jim Douglas tomorrow at Champlain College. The list of workshops shows the staggering breadth of the stimulus package.
From small business loans, to first-time home buyer tax credits; from community block grants to unemployment assistance; from health care IT grants to infrastructure improvements. There is a workshop for everyone.
These sorts of workshops should be held across the nation as well, so that people can see that jobs are coming; that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully it will be money well-spent, money that will restart our economic engine. A little confidence will spur buying; buying will spur investment; investment will spur lending; lending will spur building; building will spur job growth, which will spur confidence. And so on.
I do dearly hope that Williston is the beneficiary of some of the funds. But even if not, as projects throughout the state are approved and started, we will feel the ripples as the stimulus spreads throughout the area.
--
I note the passing of Paul Harvey this past weekend. I remember listening to his newscast years ago as I drove to meet my wife for occasional lunches. The tone, pace, and timbre of his voice were unmistakable. Though I had not heard him for a long while, his tag lines, like "And that's the rest of the story," "Page 2," and his distinctive "Good day!" not to mention his famous pregnant pauses, are etched in my memory. Harvey will be missed.
Showing posts with label stimulus package. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stimulus package. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Legislating our way to prosperity?
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 5, 2009.
Legislating our way to prosperity?
Just two weeks into the job, President Barack Obama is hitting something of a stride, despite the best efforts of some.
The mouthpiece of the Republican opposition, Rush Limbaugh, has already indicated that "I want him to fail," the "him" being Obama. His "damn the torpedoes" philosophy would rather see the economy in ruin than see Obama succeed.
Not every Republican finds kinship with Limbaugh's divisive opinions. One notable challenger is Republican stalwart Bill Bennett, who said that Limbaugh's "locution" was not what the nation needed.
However, challenging Limbaugh seems to be for brave-of-heart only. Republican Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia made a public apology to Limbaugh after saying that he should "back off" the rhetoric.
As Bennett notes, such obstructionism is not helpful, especially as Obama and his team face the train wreck that is the American and global economies.
I definitely do not want Obama to fail. I want to keep my job and want to see my friends, family, and neighbors keep their jobs. The real question is, will the administration's current plans succeed in doing just that.
Of course, the President does not make law - he can only make coherent and thoughtful suggestions, and then sit back and watch the Congress mangle the plan into a chaotic mess, with bits of pork, poison pills, and totally unrelated measures added here and there.
The first version crafted by House Democrats was put before the full House and with the input of House Republicans, pared down in places and expanded in others. Of course, that input into the process didn't convince a single House Republican to vote for the $819 billion package. But with a sizable Democratic majority, the bill could stand to have no Republican support, and even a handful of Democratic detractors, and still pass.
The House's plan is now in front of the Senate, where it will get a much closer look. In the Senate, the Republicans have a considerable measure of power. This is good for the nation, because as I've written before, it does none of us any good to have bad bills railroaded through, even if there is majority agreement with them.
The sober second look the Senate will take (and, indeed, was designed to take) will end up being something Democrats and Republicans equally like and hate, a sure sign it is a good bill.
The end result must stimulate the economy. It must spend money on things to put people to work, now and in the future; on things that will entice or force banks to begin lending again; on things that will make a real difference.
As of this writing, the bill has a higher price tag than the original House version: $900 billion. The bill is divided into two parts: spending increases and tax cuts.
Welcome to the wonderfully confusing and seemingly paradoxical world of macroeconomics: while spending more, we need to take in less.
The strategy of tax cuts is to give consumers and businesses more money in their pockets, and then hope neither group sits on the new-found funds. If people are out there buying things, orders for new things will increase. If businesses have more orders, they will increase inventory, inventory that will have to produced by people. Hiring more people will lead to more people working, with more money to spend, and so on.
The strategy of increased spending is more direct - the government funds projects that require businesses and employees to complete, and more projects means more productive workers. Of course, more workers means more income tax, hopefully enough to balance out the tax cuts and some of that extra spending.
Case in point: the Census Bureau's plans to open shop in Williston, a possible boon for many of our recently-laid off.
It's the adage "You've got to spend money to make money" writ large.
The outlay of $900 billion scares me in its scope, but the consequences of doing nothing scare me even more. If the president has his way, the bill will be finalized and passed within a couple of weeks. The Congress has time to craft a final bill worthy of passage, worthy of signature. I hope that their sense of what's right, and not a Limbaugh-esque sense of spite, takes over and we get a bill that will help us claw our way out of this crisis.
Legislating our way to prosperity?
Just two weeks into the job, President Barack Obama is hitting something of a stride, despite the best efforts of some.
The mouthpiece of the Republican opposition, Rush Limbaugh, has already indicated that "I want him to fail," the "him" being Obama. His "damn the torpedoes" philosophy would rather see the economy in ruin than see Obama succeed.
Not every Republican finds kinship with Limbaugh's divisive opinions. One notable challenger is Republican stalwart Bill Bennett, who said that Limbaugh's "locution" was not what the nation needed.
However, challenging Limbaugh seems to be for brave-of-heart only. Republican Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia made a public apology to Limbaugh after saying that he should "back off" the rhetoric.
As Bennett notes, such obstructionism is not helpful, especially as Obama and his team face the train wreck that is the American and global economies.
I definitely do not want Obama to fail. I want to keep my job and want to see my friends, family, and neighbors keep their jobs. The real question is, will the administration's current plans succeed in doing just that.
Of course, the President does not make law - he can only make coherent and thoughtful suggestions, and then sit back and watch the Congress mangle the plan into a chaotic mess, with bits of pork, poison pills, and totally unrelated measures added here and there.
The first version crafted by House Democrats was put before the full House and with the input of House Republicans, pared down in places and expanded in others. Of course, that input into the process didn't convince a single House Republican to vote for the $819 billion package. But with a sizable Democratic majority, the bill could stand to have no Republican support, and even a handful of Democratic detractors, and still pass.
The House's plan is now in front of the Senate, where it will get a much closer look. In the Senate, the Republicans have a considerable measure of power. This is good for the nation, because as I've written before, it does none of us any good to have bad bills railroaded through, even if there is majority agreement with them.
The sober second look the Senate will take (and, indeed, was designed to take) will end up being something Democrats and Republicans equally like and hate, a sure sign it is a good bill.
The end result must stimulate the economy. It must spend money on things to put people to work, now and in the future; on things that will entice or force banks to begin lending again; on things that will make a real difference.
As of this writing, the bill has a higher price tag than the original House version: $900 billion. The bill is divided into two parts: spending increases and tax cuts.
Welcome to the wonderfully confusing and seemingly paradoxical world of macroeconomics: while spending more, we need to take in less.
The strategy of tax cuts is to give consumers and businesses more money in their pockets, and then hope neither group sits on the new-found funds. If people are out there buying things, orders for new things will increase. If businesses have more orders, they will increase inventory, inventory that will have to produced by people. Hiring more people will lead to more people working, with more money to spend, and so on.
The strategy of increased spending is more direct - the government funds projects that require businesses and employees to complete, and more projects means more productive workers. Of course, more workers means more income tax, hopefully enough to balance out the tax cuts and some of that extra spending.
Case in point: the Census Bureau's plans to open shop in Williston, a possible boon for many of our recently-laid off.
It's the adage "You've got to spend money to make money" writ large.
The outlay of $900 billion scares me in its scope, but the consequences of doing nothing scare me even more. If the president has his way, the bill will be finalized and passed within a couple of weeks. The Congress has time to craft a final bill worthy of passage, worthy of signature. I hope that their sense of what's right, and not a Limbaugh-esque sense of spite, takes over and we get a bill that will help us claw our way out of this crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)