In this diary, I will discuss the effort to restore the Puget Sound and protect Salmon in the Northwest, as they relate to the Stimulus package. This diary is not interesting and not particularly good.
There are few worse ways to begin a workout at the gym than to discover that the only unoccupied treadmill is positioned squarely in front of the television that’s always tuned to Fox News. I don’t mind getting stuck in front of the CNN television. Anderson Cooper and his closed-captioned words generally complement the soundtrack to my sweat (My Bloody Valentine, Pixies, The Thermals, and Cursive, generally).
Watching Fox while doing a few 8.5-minute-miles is a profoundly confusing experience -- Mostly because the closed captioning sucks. In fact, the only time I can watch Van Susteren without getting angry is when the closed captioning is on, because it’s fucking unintelligible. Sometimes, one sentence will make perfect sense. Then, sensing its error, the program will "backspace" through the sensible sentence (i.e.: "A big day in the House of Representatives today – more on that right after the break) and replace it with something that blows my mind (i.e. "A big day at the House of Presence Addicts – more data after Erik!"). I wait for Erik, and Erik never comes. Then, I go home sweaty AND sad.
Last night, Greta Van Susteren interviewed Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. I could tell that much only because I know what they both look like (meanies!) Key concepts from the interview seemed to involve the words "trial balloon", "stimulus" and "failure" (or "flyer"). I was intrigued by these words, and hastily returned to my residence to read the transcript of the interview here: link to interview.
Since you didn’t click on the link, I will tell you that the focus of the interview was the supposed failure of the stimulus package, and the Democrats’ intimation that a second shot-in-the-arm might be worth discussing.
"I mean, we passed the first stimulus on the representation the president made that it would keep unemployment from going above 8 percent. Well, we now know it's going to go above 10 percent. And we just discussed how much interest we're paying every day on this ill-begotten venture. To suggest that we want to do it again is truly astonishing."
To which Greta replied,
"Is there any sign from that $875 billion stimulus package that was passed in February -- are there any positive indicators? I realize that unemployment is sort of a lagging indicator, but are there any signs that it's working?"
"I realize that unemployment is sort of a lagging indicator"... Okay, that’s rich. If the whole point of the stimulus was jobs, and jobs are a lagging indicator, why are we proclaiming the stimulus to be a failure just a few months after its passage? Of course, Greta then asked Mitch what the REAL answer to our unemployment problem is. Of course, he said it was tax cuts.
I’m sorry, Mitch. But tax cuts and diminished withholding might have a chance of increasing consumer spending. But the argument that tax cuts would affect housing is completely absurd.
"Look, what we would have done back in the beginning, at about half the cost, was to go straight at the housing problem and to put money directly back in the pockets of middle and lower-income people through tax relief, immediate tax relief. It would have shown up in their paychecks right then."
I bought a house in March, not because my income tax was lowered, but because the new government gave me $8000 (a behaviorally conditioned, specific, lump-sum reward) as incentive. Not a tax cut.
My frustration with the "Stimulus 2.0" debate is intense because it’s personal. I work at a struggling engineering firm. For months, I’ve followed the debate in the Washington State legislature and the US congress over funding for Puget Sound restoration and salmon protection. The residential and commercial building markets are incredibly weak. The best chance we have of getting long-term, large-scale contracts is if we are able to work on government-funded projects. So far, the biggest money seems to be aimed at habitat restoration and the protection of Puget Sound waters.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was charged with allotting stimulus funds for Puget Sound restoration and salmon protection. The delivery of the funds has been delayed by partisan wrangling at the National level. But NOAA also seemed to hold its breath until the State legislature approved a budget for State-funded Puget Sound and salmon projects.
Finally, on May 29, the state announced the projects that would receive state funding. link here . The contracts will not be developed until the end of July, at the earliest; and even then, they must undergo the competitive proposal process. If we’re at all lucky, short-listed firms will be announced before October. The actual hands-on, job-generating, on-the-ground work will probably not begin until winter. Even then, the weather may prevent significant progress until spring of 2010.
And that’s just the state-funded stuff. Once Washington State committed to write a check, NOAA selected another set of projects to be funded with their stimulus allotment on June 29. lnik here . The same contractual process must be undergone for these projects, as well – requests for statements of qualifications might be sent out by the end of August – all but assuring that actual work won’t begin until 2010.
I’ve belabored this point in such great detail because salmon recovery and Sound restoration are very minor parts of the overall cost and logistics of the Stimulus. Even still it has been MONTHS since the funding was "in the can." If the details for these minor items have been so contentious, time-consuming, intricate, and complicated, it is difficult to imagine that the major infrastructure funding will be even remotely efficient. Worse still, the selection process for government –funded jobs puts a lot of private firms at significant disadvantage. The transition from private development to "public works" is one that many firms will struggle to make, and with the additional strain of meeting certain Federal selection conditions, these firms will simply fail.
Recovery will be complicated.
This point bears repeating because of the new Republican meme: States are using stimulus funds, not to fund job-creation, but to plug budget holes. This was echoed by McConnell last night:
Not yet. I mean, what's been done with most of the money, according to GAO, is states have used it to plug holes in their budgets. In other words, their revenues are down, too, because of the economic slowdown, so they just used our borrowed money to prevent them from having to make as many tough decisions as they would otherwise have to make. And of course, we're sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren.
As I described earlier, Washington State funds will be used in the restoration efforts that will be creating jobs in the middle future. My state has a massive deficit, and conservative lawmakers were loathe to set aside budget for habitat items. But if the State had not had the assurance of Stimulus funding, and the convenience of a de-facto partnership with the Federal Government in their restoration efforts, I'd be a fuck lot closer to the Unemployment Office.
The Stimulus has consequences, and impatience is not a fucking virtue.