Cities Getting Screwed on Stimulus Transpo Funds
Back during the stimulus debate I was worried that congress was going to wind up passing too much of the infrastructure money through America’s fifty state governments. State government is, as best I can tell, basically a cesspool whose purpose is to implement everything in the worst possible way. In particular, state government loves to direct infrastructure money away from places where people live (metro areas) and toward backwaters. This is economically inefficient and bad for the environment, so the appeal to state legislators is enormous.
Needless to say that’s what’s happening with ARRA money. In terms of the stimulus-qua-stimulus this probably doesn’t matter, but it also means we’re not going to be reaping nearly the long-term benefits we could or should from new transportation investmenets.
23 Responses to “Cities Getting Screwed on Stimulus Transpo Funds”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 9th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Socialize the losses (rural infrastructure development), privatize the profits (urban infrastructure projects).
The Obama team is saving the plum franchises for the big money boys. This is why he proposed a $10 billion National Infrastructure Bank.
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2009/07/stimulating-infrastructure.html
July 9th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I’m sure the cities will indeed get screwed a bit in the final tally, but as that article eventually gets around to noting, the 30% delegated to metropolitan planning organizations instead of state governments is being allocated on a somewhat slower schedule, and none of this includes the $8.4 billion for mass transit or $1.5 billion for national/regional projects.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
By the way, my understanding is that the best spending in terms of jobs is road and bridge repair, not new capacity. But apparently spending on road and bridge repair instead of new capacity does tend to bias spending toward rural areas. I’m actually fine with that result, however, again once you note the mass transit funds aren’t being included in this analysis.
In fact, speaking just anecdotally, I was originally worried that a long-talked-about new highway loop in my area would get stimulus funding. This highway loop, designed to relieve a local bottleneck, was going to cut up some existing neighborhoods and green spaces, and I think there is ample evidence that this is a mistaken approach to urban congestion in the long run anyway.
So thinking about things like that, I’m actually happy a lot of road and highway funding isn’t pouring into my area–yes, we definitely need some repair work, but otherwise I’d like to see the local funding going to different sorts of transportation projects.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Back during the stimulus debate I was worried that congress was going to wind up passing too much of the infrastructure money through America’s fifty state governments. State government is, as best I can tell, basically a cesspool whose purpose is to implement everything in the worst possible way.
============================================================
Oh stop whining!! You guys got paid off
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-08-redblue_N.htm
Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in ‘08
Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year’s presidential election.
Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.
The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Campesino, thanks for proving that the cities tend to go blue. That was kind of awesome.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Matt, why’d you give Wonkette’s intern such a hard time about taking a picture with you? He makes you look tall and handsome by comparison.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Campesino, thanks for proving that the cities tend to go blue. That was kind of awesome.
=============================================================
Please give your compliments to CNN!
That’s why I told Matt to stop whining. Shorter MY: cities are getting most of the money, but it’s not fair ’cause we want all the transportation money too!!!
July 9th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Campesino cracks me up. If you actually read the linked article, it explains how this is very likely the result of pre-existing spending formulas and has nothing in particular to do with politics. In fact, this is my favorite part:
Who knew? The Bush Administration, and for quite a while a Republican Congress, was apparently preemptively “paying off” Obama supporters.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
From the same USA Today article Campesino quotes:
Who was it who made a fetish of saying ‘Read the whole piece?
July 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Campesino cracks me up
What do you expect from someone who has such little self-respect he’s reduced to posting links to USA Today? It’s news for people who don’t have the attention span to read the headlines.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Seems like a more important divide than urban/rural is high versus low unemployment. Because we would of course want the money to be going to low unemployment areas. Is it? No:
http://www.kcchronicle.com/articles/2009/05/11/78567268/index.xml
But that USA Today article is interesting. I am not sure how it jives with the article MY mentions here. BO did very well in urban areas. And the USA Today story says the $$$ is flowing towards places where BO did well. But the other article is saying $$$ is flowing to rural areas. Of course, the article I link to says otherwise.
My head hurts.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I’m sorry, but that article is significantly lacking. It basically seems designed to appeal to an urbanite readership base, and doesn’t really stand up to a lot of scrutiny.
For example, what are these “rural” projects exactly? I know Ohio spent a good amount of money repairing and widening a stretch of I-70 in rural Madison County over the last 5 years, but the reason being that I-70 is more or less the only route of highway transportation from Dayton to Columbus. Certainly for shipping (US 40 isn’t wide enough). So while you can call that a “rural project,” the purpose of it is to service the economic concerns of the metropolitan areas. So I’d wonder how many similar things you see in some of these rural expenditures.
Secondly, it seems to me that the Innerbelt Bridge example (which is really absurd in its own right) gives the game away by pointing out that the reason this is happening is to speed up outlays, since this was the stimulus bill after all. And given that the need for alternative traffic routes limits the amount of road projects you can do at once in most urban centers, this seems like a wise direction of spending if the primary concern is getting the money out quickly.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I, for one, am shocked that government officials at the federal and state levels are not making decisions that are in the best long term interest of anybody.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
My head hurts.
Is it really so hard to understand that the two articles are talking about two different pools of money?
Seems like a more important divide than urban/rural is high versus low unemployment. Because we would of course want the money to be going to low unemployment areas.
Your idea is that we should build and repair transportation infrastructure wherever the highest rates of unemployment are, as opposed to having the unemployed people come to the places we need to actually build and repair transportation infrastructure? Personally, that seems like a bad idea to me.
Again, though, that is just part of the stimulus. Other parts of the stimulus do things like extend unemployment benefits, and so track unemployed people directly.
By the way, that article keeps talking about Elk County, PA. Elk County is in the middle of the least-dense part of PA. It isn’t particularly close to Erie, let alone Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, and no interstate (e.g., I-80) even passes through it. Accordingly, you really couldn’t pick a much better example of a place that probably shouldn’t be getting a lot of federal transportation funding, no matter what the local employment situation.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Unlike the almighty *federal* government, which is staffed by selfless civil servants who toil night and day for the benefit of the people! Careful Matt, you might accidentally put two and two together one of these days and become disillusioned…
July 9th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
DTM Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Campesino cracks me up. If you actually read the linked article, it explains how this is very likely the result of pre-existing spending formulas and has nothing in particular to do with politics. In fact, this is my favorite part:
The imbalance didn’t start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Who knew? The Bush Administration, and for quite a while a Republican Congress, was apparently preemptively “paying off” Obama supporters.
============================================================
Yes, I read the piece and saw that too. I didn’t allege corruption. My point was in #7 – urban counties already appear to be getting the lion’s share of the stimulus money, but that’s not good enough for MY, he wants cities to have all the transportation money, too.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
New Campesino:
Old Campesino:
Personally, I thought the old Campesino was more interesting.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I am stunned to discover that big cities run by Democrats aren’t very efficient. I am also stunned to discover that Not In My Back Yard-ism is stronger where there are more Back Yards.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I’m stunned that the post seems to imply that the federal government would be better at allocating these funds than the states. They were the ones that passed a bill allocating the money to the states in the first place. So, the congress allocated the funds imprudently by allocating them to the imprudent state governments… Hmm
July 9th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
BLACK SEPTEMBER AND STIMULUS PLAN II
(The Only Option)
So, what is next on the failure list of the Media Messiah Imperial Presidents lists of failures and broken promises, why another failed Stimulus Plan of course, there is no other plan if at first you do not succeed will just try, try again, Stimulus Plan I, II, III, etc., All doomed to failure and all for the same reasons, money does not create jobs when there are no jobs to be had, and with every percent of additional money printed the value of the Empire Currency drops correspondingly, against other International Currencies and Wally World becomes more expensive. The Messiah has only one plan and it has to be pushed thru before Black September II, and Labor Day, prior to the Holiday Season, this is the Only Option.
(Why It Will Fail)
Why it will fail, the reason it will fail is simple (1) One, OFFICIALLY UNEMPLOYED) Officially Unemployed Workers, still on the roles, (2) Two, in the (LABOR FORCE RESERVES) because they have abandoned their job searches, (3) Underemployed because they are (PART-TIME OF NECESSITY), placing the effective unemployment rate between (18% – 20%), Eighteen, and Twenty Percent and increasing with each day, and the creation of new jobs falling fall behind just the Officially Unemployed let alone the Effective Unemployment figures. Neither the effectively nor the Official Unemployed are going to spend money beyond their immediate needs, of shelter, food, and clothing necessities of life, and when the figure of (20%) Twenty-Percent, is the amount off the top that will not be used of yet another Stimulus Plan, you have dropped its effectiveness rate to (80%) Eighty-Percent. How do they pay for those school supplies going up on Wally World Shelves today, where do they get the money for new school clothes, winter clothes, the savings accounts are gone, the (401K) Four-OH-One is gone, the Bonds are spent, the credit cards are maxed out, or they are in Bankruptcy, and yet another Stimulus Plan will do what buy groceries for a week or two? With zero individual job, the zero prospects of finding a job, the zero bank account, zero chance of being able to make any payments on credit owed, and zero idea of what to do.
(The Making Of Black September)
Then the question in the backs of the minds of those who still have employment, minimum, moderate, or maximum Holiday Spending, and will they even get a Holiday Bonus from their employer or will it be a Pink Slip, at the end of the year? California Bankrupt, Michigan Bankrupt, Colorado, Ohio, Utah, Washington State, West Virginia, Wyoming, all may follow suite into Bankruptcy as (King Coal) production is cut, Aircraft Manufacturing is cut, Airlines Industry cut backs, stoppage of the New Space Shuttle, and showing of the (NASA) North American Space Agency Program, the Auto Industry is gone with its suppliers, industry after industry cutting back or going under, while printing pallet on pallet of Dollars to pay countries to provide means of supply lines into the (AF-PAK) War Zone But the answer is yet another nickel, and dime Stimulus Package, and BLACK SEPTEMBER II in the making.
(RECOMMENDED READING):
(1) (WWW.TheWashingtonNote.Com) InterMedia Partners Managing Partner and New America Foundation/Smart Globalization Initiative Chairman Leo Hindery.)
(2) (http://www.spiegel.de/international) THE MAN NOBODY WANTED TO HEAR, Global Banking Economist Warned of Coming Crisis.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
MY “State government is, as best I can tell, basically a cesspool whose purpose is to implement everything in the worst possible way.”
This might sound like a question a professor gets from a stupid freshman sitting in the back row of civics class, but isn’t the reason we have so much government a result of the fact we have way too many goddamn states?
I am theoretically a big government liberal but I would actually love to shrink government, not quite to the point where I could drown it in a bathtub, but where I could at least give it a good dunking from time to time in an above ground swimming pool.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Mack,
I can’t speak for Matt, but generally I think people like him wanted more funds allocated directly to local units (e.g., the aforementioned metropolitan planning organizations).
July 10th, 2009 at 3:41 am
@Campesino,
The reason that areas backing Obama are getting more “to help students pay for college” is that they actually have colleges. I am confused about the public housing, though. We all know how much public housing the red states have. Why in the world did that corrupt Obama not give them as much as the blue states?
But, what really bowls me over is that apparently there are actually some military installations in blue states! Shades of Sherman’s march!