In principle the idea of bringing forward some of the infrastructure work which would need to be done eventually anyway; and in the process at least temporarily employing some of the people that would otherwise be on unemployment or welfare etc. is very appealing to me. Seems to me it wasn’t that long ago, after the Minnesota bridge collapse that many on here were bemoaning our lack of investment in infrastructure so isn’t this a chance to kill 2 or more birds with one stone?
Now I'm not dumb enough to think that contractors etc. can necessarily go from building timber framed houses to refurbishing/replacing bridges & the like, but they should be able to do refurbishment of schools and other government owned buildings, shouldn't they?
I've started to wonder if the bill should have been broken out, rather than a ridiculously large amount of $ in one go it could perhaps been split up, something like:
- Short term stimulus such as infrastructure projects ready to go or even in work but lacking/soon to lack funds, defense projects in a similar state and maybe even some planning for further infrastructure projects to potentially be funded. Essentially things that can be started within a few months and generate things of long term value to the country while keeping a few people off unemployment (and off course hence giving them money to spend to generate more jobs…)
- Short term 'bail-outs' to states or federal agencies etc. to maintain essential services.
These 2 to have been arranged in about the current schedule.
- Medium term stimulus similar to above but covering jobs that still need some planning/engineering before ground is broken etc. Perhaps jogs that can’t start before the end of this year but could start by 2010 and be complete within a year or two of then. Some ability to vary the amount actually spent depending on how the economy is doing at the time it comes to be spent would be nice but may be impractical due to the uncertainty it implies.
- Long term recovery plan. Including money for education, research, studies (real ones not bottom less pits for partisan think tanks etc.) into things like a comprehensive energy policy, possibly some longer term infrastructure but based on needs/logic etc. not just pandering to lobbyists be they from the oil industry, environmental groups or anyone else fixed on only their narrow view point.
Honestly, I have my doubts about the benefit of ‘cut taxes across the board’ approach/elements or the ‘tax refund’ like last year, for reasons stated by others above.
At the risk of sounding like a Philistine, I’m not sure the ‘national endowment for the arts’ is worthy of funding under cover of ‘stimulus’. Although I have some sympathy for design studies for new Coast Guard ice breakers and even contraception for those on benefits (that second should get some flames from the average eng-tips member).
However, I’m sure the above breaks to many fundamental rules of economics/politics…
thread769-236603 is related.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies: