personal finance programs

On Monday, I linked to this op-ed from Tom Esvlin, Vermont's "stimulus czar," lamenting the way the money got spent. "Although I'd like to think Vermont did better than many states, much of the money ended up continuing bloated programs rather than providing a transition to a sustainable future," he wrote. That same day, Brookings' Gary Burtless e-mailed in a rebuttal that's worth quoting at length, as it's a very clear description of where the stimulus funds actually went, and why such a small percentage was directly devoted to building things. So here it is, with some edits for space:

The main problem with that silly op-ed is that it refers to only a small slice of the actual federal spending on stimulus authorized by the Feb. 2009 legislation. So far, the overwhelming share of that stimulus has been devoted to three items: Tax cuts for households; direct benefits to people adversely affected by the severe recession, mostly the unemployed or poor; and fiscal relief to state and local governments. Vermont did not need any "Czar" to receive or administer funds under these programs. The money for them quickly left the U.S. Treasury without any effort on the part of the Czar who penned this highly misleading op-ed piece. People in Vermont *directly* received benefits from the stimulus as: (1) lower federal tax withholding from their paychecks; (2) extended unemployment benefits; (3) premium subsidies so they could maintain their health insurance after they were laid off from a job in which they received health protection; (4) miscellaneous benefits (e.g., for college costs) under one provision or another; and (5) aid from the Treasury that permitted Vermont and its localities to finance their Medicaid and K-12 education programs without hiking taxes or lowering other public spending. The kinds of infrastructure spending for which the WSJ's "Czar" had some responsibility constituted a small percentage of the stimulus the Congress authorized for 2009 and 2010.



In FY 2009 and 2010, the EXPECTED spending on infrastructure and other items for which the Vermont “Czar” may have had partial responsibility accounted for just 11% of anticipated spending under the stimulus legislation. The other 89% had nothing to do with the programs criticized by Vermont’s supposed Czar. Thus, all of his complaints – even if justified – are essentially irrelevant to the programs mainly supported by the stimulus law … at least so far. Obviously, in the years 2011-2019, that kind of stimulus spending would have accounted for a vastly larger share of outlays. But (and perhaps Vermont’s Czar has not kept up with this because he does not read a daily paper) the Congress just passed and the President just signed ANOTHER stimulus program consisting of more than 90% personal and business tax cuts and less than 10% extensions in unemployment benefits. So far as I know, very little additional spending has been authorized for those hated infrastructure / technology investment projects. Below is the CBO’s year-by-year analysis of the spending authorized under the Feb. 2009 stimulus law:

My own private view is that the country would probably have been better off if *MORE* of the original stimulus had been devoted to infrastructure / technology investment (more of it would have been spent on goods and services produced in the U.S. rather than China, East Asia, and Europe). Setting aside that consideration for a minute, what infuriates me about the piece cited in your blog is that it reinforces the very widespread but totally erroneous impression that Congress and the Administration were unaware of the administrative hurdles to fast spending that the “Czar” points out in his op-ed. Those hurdles were understood from the very beginning, which is precisely the reason that infrastructure/technology investment projects constituted such a small percentage of the total package. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize the pace of spending on these projects, but it is utterly deranged to think that the slow rate of spending on the projects constitutes a serious indictment of the spending authorized under the Feb. 2009 stimulus program. Very little of the expected spending under the stimulus program (at least so far) was supposed to be devoted to those projects.

In a powerful and well-reasoned speech, economist James Galbraith (son of John Kenneth Galbraith, by the way) has strong words for President Obama. He also offers his thoughts on "where progressives go from here" (h/t Digby). It's a strong piece, well worth your careful read (my emphasis throughout).

On Obama, he says "one could say he has betrayed [our] hopes." Please check the paragraphs that lead to that sentence; they don't contain a rant, but a list.

On the future and the Democratic Party, his analysis is excellent:

What happens next? Let's again not kid ourselves, we have lost a great many seats in the House of Representatives and the House of Representatives isn't coming back into a Democratic majority in the near future. Simply because of the balance of exposures -- the larger numbers of Democratic Senators exposed to reelection in the next cycle, the greatest likelihood is that the Senate will also go Republican in two years time. President Obama has set his course. He has surrounded himself with the advisers of his choice and as he moves to replace President Summers we hear from the press that the priority is to "repair the rift with his investors on Wall Street." What does that tell you? It tells me that he does not have President Clinton's fighting and survival instincts. I've not heard one good reason all day to believe that we are going to see from this White House the fight that we want, that he could win in two years, or any reason we should be backing him now.

The Democratic Party has become too associated with Wall Street. This is a fact. It is a structural problem. It seems to me that we as progressives need -- this is my personal position -- we need to draw a line and decide that we would be better off with an under-funded, fighting progressive minority party than a party marked by obvious duplicity and constant losses on every policy front as a result of the reversals in our own leadership.

What should progressives do? He offers a list, including:

it seems to me that we as progressives need to make an honorable defense of the great legacies of the New Deal and Great Society -- programs and institutions that brought America out of the Great Depression and bought us through the Second World War, brought us to our period of greatest prosperity, and the greatest advances in social justice. Social Security, Medicare, housing finance -- the front-line right now is the foreclosure crisis, the crisis, I should say, of foreclosure fraud -- the progressive tax code, anti-poverty policy, public investment, public safety, and human and civil rights. We are going to lose these battles– get used to it. But we need to make an honorable fight, to state clearly what our principles are and to lay down a record which is trustworthy for the future. ... We are not going to get these things, but we should have a clearly defined program so that people know what they are.

Why work to do all this? Because "in the long run we need to recognize that the fate of the entire country is at stake. Its governance can't be entrusted indefinitely to incompetents, hacks, and lobbyists. Large countries can and do fail, they have done so in our own time."

And finally, about hope (a concern I hear constantly):

We need to lose our fear, our hesitation, and our unwillingness to face the facts. If we thereby lose some of our hopes, let's remember the dictum of William of Orange that "it is not necessary to hope in order to persevere."

The president should know that, as Lincoln said to the Congress in the dark winter of 1862, he "cannot escape history." And we are heading now into a very dark time, so let's face it with eyes open. And if we must, let's seek leadership that shares our values, fights for our principles, and deserves our trust.

I present this as one well-reasoned contribution to a discussion we must be having, starting now, if we are ever climb our way — together — out of this mess.

I understand that Iowa is 14 months away, give or take. That's not much time. I'm not making a recommendation yet; but I am saying that whatever progressives decide to do, we need to decide it soon. I offer this speech as one voice in that discussion.

Yours in perseverance,

GP

free rental agreement forms

Star Wars Complete Saga Blu-ray <b>news</b>: release in September, 30 <b>...</b>

This might not be the 'most impressive' Star Wars announcement you were looking for. Not that it's a bad thing the complete saga will be.

Susan Roberts Named New Eyewitness <b>News</b> Anchor | WPRI.com

CBS News correspondent Susan Roberts named new Eyewitness News anchor,

Huffington Post: Reinventing the “Big <b>News</b>” Experience with IE9 <b>...</b>

Huffington Post is a leading social news and opinion site, "The Internet Newspaper." They want to serve their customers relevant and timely “Big News” content and get them engaged to respond through blogs and social posts. ...