What “Belongs” In the Stimulus?
I saw Senator Ben Nelson (”D”-Nebraska) on teevee earlier today objecting to the fact that the economic recovery plan contains money for things like Pell Grants and other programs Democrats like that, he said, were worthy in their own terms but didn’t “belong in the stimulus plan.” David Brooks offers similar concerns in today’s New York Times column, complaining about “big increases for Pell Grants, alternative energy subsidies and health and entitlement spending” and arguing:
The best course is to return to the original Summers parameters — temporary, targeted and timely — thus making the stimulus cleaner and faster.
Strip out the permanent government programs. Many of them are worthy, but we can have that debate another day.
A few points in response to the Brooks/Nelson objections. One is that this sort of thing really does need to be kept in perspective. The stimulus bill is huge. It’s huge because the macroeconomic situation requires a huge stimulus. The stimulus bill is also multi-faceted. And it needs to be multifaceted because it’s so huge. Targeted tax cuts can be good stimulus, but you can’t do $850 billion of well-targeted tax cuts. Infrastructure can be good stimulus, but you can’t do $850 billion of good infrastructure projects. Long story short, the grab-bag character of the stimulus is a feature rather than a bug. Now, boring down into the bag you can find some specific spending provisions that probably are mistakes. Elsewhere in the piece Brooks singles out Head Start expansion as not such a hot idea. And my understanding is that he’s basically right—it would be better to target early childhood spending on Community Development Block Grants to allow child care services to keep running, and on construction of new facilities for early childhood programs. The existence of these kind of problems are good reason to hope that the Senate version of the bill is improved on these fronts. It’s also a good reason to push the future conference committee to fix these problems. But this is a pretty piece of the overall puzzle. The existence of a handful of sub-optimal provisions in an enormous program does not justify the kind of irresponsibility shown by the House members who voted against the overall package. The House version of the stimulus isn’t perfect, but it’s way better than doing nothing and way better than Jim DeMint’s Dr. Evil stimulus.
Second, with a lot of this stuff whether or not it really “belongs in the stimulus” seems irrelevant to me. If you have a program that actually is worthy, then funding it will make the country better, whether or not it truly “belongs” in the stimulus. If you have a program that’s worthy, and that doesn’t really belong in the stimulus, and you have a Republican who doesn’t think the program is worthy, and he’d be willing to vote for the stimulus if you stripped that program from the bill, then it seems to me that you have a decent case for dropping a worthy program. But if you’re Ben Nelson and you think the program is worthy, then why not just support the worthy program? It’s true that doing so doesn’t fit a perfectly pristine notion of how the legislative process should work, but anytime the process is working in favor of worthy programs rather than crappy ones, that’s a lot better than the normal functioning of the legislative process.
Meanwhile, as Matt Corley observes, there’s a decent case to be made that some of the stuff Nelson objects to—including higher NIH funding and money for Pell Grants—actually are a good use of stimulus funds.
39 Responses to “What “Belongs” In the Stimulus?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 30th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
honest to goodness, people used to complain that harry reid couldn’t magically make joe lieberman and ben nelson behave, but when you’re dealing with the kind of obtuseness that nelson displays here (it’s not stupidity per se, it’s a mental rigidity), what exactly are you supposed to do?
it’s much clearer what you’re supposed to do with brooks: assume he’s a shill and discount accordingly. he’s irrelevant.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I have been listening to the NSF chattering related to the stimulus, and the effects there would be much the same as NIH and Pell Grants. Many universities are having to make major cuts across the board right now (my own university just announced 10% cuts across the board, but fortunately we are trying to do it without layoffs). Stimulus of in any of these three (NSF, NIH, Pell) would benefit these universities greatly.
In my case, the university is the economic life-blood of the town. Cuts at the university have massive effects on the local economy, as everything else is retail and service industry for university employees. And there are a lot of towns like this in the country; they are like the plant towns of old. We haven’t been able to save the plant towns, but we can do a lot for the university towns.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Nelson’s going to whine? So f*ck him. Are there enough sympathetic Republicans in the Senate to get the thing passed?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“boring down into the bag you can find some specific spending provisions that probably are mistakes”
Some? Probably? But you have to bore down into the bag?
Make that many, definitely, and throughout the bag.
The stimulus would be appropriate if it were timely, targeted and temporary, i.e., if we lived in a different world than the one in which we live. Pelosi, et al. are living down to their well-deserved reputations as lightweights. A massive, massive waste of money.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Are there enough sympathetic Republicans in the Senate to get the thing passed?
According to Power Line, John Cornyn thinks Republican opposition will be unanimous. There’s been reporting that a new “Gang of 14″ will craft something new and torpedo the current bill.
Then again, other reporting indicates that some Republicans are expressing an intent to work it out.
Who knows?, in other words.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I largely agree with your points, Matt.
But one thing.
Please, please don’t do the petulant “D” thing again. I’ve spent 8 years hearing the right-wing bitch and moan about their “RINOs”, I honestly don’t want to hear that same sort of petulance from our side. Nelson’s no progressive, he’s not particularly liberal, and I disagree with him just about 100% on this … but for all that, he’s still a Democrat. It’s not like a Republican senator in his place would be any better in this situation.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
The problem is that if you’re Obama you are now using a crisis situation to ram through legislation under false pretenses. You are attempting to get popular buy-in for good ideas on the cheap, using Bush-like rhetoric about how our problems require immediate action.
But since the long-term programs in the bill aren’t actually time-critical, your rhetoric is inapplicable to those programs.
In the long run, people don’t like a crisis-monger. Remember the Iraq War and the Patriot Act?
This is not a peripheral issue about doing things “perfectly.” Rather it is a fundamental issue of “convince the people to support you” versus “exploit a crisis to circumvent popular buy-in.”
The margin for error for all of these programs is so much smaller because they are being rammed through. I think it is stupid strategy in the long-run.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
ok, ostap: step up to the plate. explain to us why spending over the next two years isn’t timely. explain to us what microtargeting we are supposed to employ beyond that already employed. explain to us what you mean by temporary.
this is not your garden-variety recession; the response to a typical recession (i.e., timely, targeted, and temporary), while it was of no interest to the gop in 2001 when it was relevant, requires a broader definition of terms when the economic issues are deleveraging and the transition to an economy that no longer is 70% carried by consumers.
meanwhile, you are, of course, on record as opposing the bush response to the 2001 recession because it wasn’t timely, targeted, and temporary, right? you can demonstrate your adherence to principle then, can’t you?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
mk, i think you completely and totally misread the situation. at a time of collapsing demand and declining credit availability, G is the only option, and substantive G at that.
that’s what’s being rammed through, and there are no false pretenses other than the argument that there is some clear distinction between “purely stimulative” and “increased government spending.”
January 30th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Bush piloted the economy into the ground, the Democrats then got elected, and now the Democrats get to do whatever they want and rationalize it however they want.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Since pretty much every program Obama supports is good, why not just put everything into the stimulus? Crank it to 11!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
The solution is obvious. Remove the NIH and education grants in return for removing the tax cuts intended to appease the Republicans who are going to oppose the package no matter what. Replace those things with more infrastructure spending.
Voila! Everyone’s happy, except those who decided they wouldn’t be happy no matter what.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
the Democrats then got elected, and now the Democrats get to do whatever they want and rationalize it however they want.
Yeah, I’m sure gonna miss the sober, cool-headed fact-based policy decisions that characterized the last eight years.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Remove the NIH and education grants in return for removing the tax cuts intended to appease the Republicans who are going to oppose the package no matter what. Replace those things with more infrastructure spending.
Or something like that. Personally, what rankles me is Nelson’s immediately going public with his dissent. Isn’t this kind of thing supposed to be worked out behind closed doors? WTF?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
The stimulus bill should be just that. The bill should be about creating jobs, putting money in the citizens pockets, and increasing consumer confidence so citizens will spend money. Everyone is tired of politicians on both sides cramming ejaculatory irregularity of frogs into legitimate bills. If a Senator feels frog ejaculation is important then he should present a bill on frog jizz and have it voted up or down. Frog Jizz Funding would end if Senators had to present and defend these projects instead of burying them in legitmate bills. Condom funding is no different. Some of you will write back that I am anti-condom or a condom basher, which is simply not true, I am pro-condom. I would just prefer to see funding for them in a Condom Bill.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Psst…Matthew! if you act now, you can edit your post and take this out, and not look like such a dunderhead.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Matt’s right on this. Anything that we think is worth spending money on is worthy of being in the stimulus bill. All spending creates jobs. While some avenues are better than others, dithering about what is optimal is counterproductive. If we think something is worth spending money on, we should do it now. Not only so it creates jobs, but because right now, things are cheaper. That includes the price of borrowing (for the government anyway.)
January 30th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Wow times change. You wrote “Head Start expansion as not such a hot idea. And my understanding is that he’s basically right—it would be better to target early childhood spending on Community Development Block Grants.” I’m old enough to remember when people remembered and defended the great society (a strong case can be made but, it’s one of those debates where progressives have just given up and moved on).
Example 1 of a great society program which demonstrably worked was Head Start. There was very strong evidence that it provided cost effective long lasting benefits to participants.
The program conceded to be a disaster (by say Brad DeLong and me) was called “community development block grants.” I recall him sighing and admitting that a lot of the great society spending was for community development block grants with no need ot add that we both considred that totally wssted.
Just wait kid, the debate is going to sound weird when you’re 48.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
While some avenues are better than others, dithering about what is optimal is counterproductive.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I’ve been accused of optimism before, but I think everyone is just setting themselves up to say that they muscled this bill into shape before a substantially similar bill gets passed in the Senate by 70 votes. They’ll throw out the Drudge Alarm provisions and beef up infrastructure spending (did you here Grassley on NPR yesterday?) and this thing will be $1.2 trillion and signed in two weeks time. I’ve got $5 on it.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
James Gary:
Yeah, I’m sure gonna miss the sober, cool-headed fact-based policy decisions that characterized the last eight years.
Can you tell me where Steve suggested that Bush made sober, cool-headed decisions? His point is that Bush set a very low standard for policy-making and that the Democrats are trying to live down to the same low standards of policy decisions that he made.
You must be one of those idiots who thinks that if you don’t like Obama, you must like Bush, like “evil twin,” who earlier talked about how I liked “killing foreigners,” assuming apparently that I had supported the Iraq War (I didn’t).
January 31st, 2009 at 1:03 am
The biggest problem with the stimulus package in current form seems to be that it won’t have enough impact when it’s needed most — this year. The CBO estimates that only $169 billion will hit this year, which isn’t that much larger than the ineffectual fiscal stimulus we had last year. Why not allocate the bulk of the fiscal stimulus to fast-acting measures? Fund whatever infrastructure projects are actually shovel-ready, provide grants or loans to the states, extend unemployment benefits, set aside 10 or 15% of the money for pork to lubricate the process — give every Senator or Congressman ~$200 million for whatever projects he deems fit — and then use the rest of the money for things that will put cash in Americans’ pockets this year, e.g., a payroll tax holiday.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:49 am
Njorl said:
First, the government needs money to fund these non-stimulus-related items, money the government doesn’t have. Second, not all spending creates jobs. Has TARP created jobs? Has the bailout of two of the Big Three U.S. automakers created jobs? No to both questions. I rest my case.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Don’t you mean, Matt, that the case would be decent if that Republican vote were needed to pass the bill? Or just in order to make labeling the GOP as ‘obstructionist’ more difficult? Or to prime Republicans for horse-trading on forthcoming energy and health care bills, and to dilute them as well?
Remind me again why we need their one vote. Or even their four votes in the Senate. Let’s see them try to actually (as opposed to procedurally) filibuster this bill and find out where that gets them. Since we’re not enjoying the planned bipartisan honeymoon, we may as well adopt a maximalist position.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Fortunately, interest rates for the federal governmentare nearly zero.
Unless you are paying people to destroy necessary facilities for employment, it does,
It preserved them.
Your case fell through a crack in the earth as you attempted to rest it.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
One is that this sort of thing really does need to be kept in perspective. The stimulus bill is huge. It’s huge because the macroeconomic situation requires a huge stimulus.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:27 am
I don
March 1st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:24 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:07 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
There are stimulus grants available but only for certain categories like business and housing. Most others are just loans.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Great quality stuff.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:52 am
The style of writing is very familiar to me. Have you written guest posts for other blogs?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Incredible site! viagra
April 15th, 2009 at 11:20 am
This is quite a hot info. I’ll share it on Digg.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
LzDPFo laftmoxoguzv, [url=http://necutbedtmau.com/]necutbedtmau[/url], [link=http://wrcfmptkgals.com/]wrcfmptkgals[/link], http://rktcuunnmbcg.com/