The Progressive Priorities That Made It Into the Stimulus
The Congressional Progressive Caucus just released a memo that offers a worthy counterpoint to our discussions today about the Republicans' baldly misleading message on the stimulus.
The Progressives have rounded up elements of their proposed $1 trillion stimulus that ended up making it into the Democratic leaders' final bill, in part or in whole. It's a list that's worth remembering while tax cuts seemingly dominate the airwaves.
The highlights of the memo are after the jump:
• Unemployment benefits (UI) extension. Cost = at least $12.7 billion• Anti-hunger provisions
* SNAP - 20% temporary increase in maximum food stamp level above the FY2009 level for two years. Cost = approximately $24 billion and increase in funds for state food stamp administrative costs Cost= $250 million;
* WIC - increase funding to make up for shortfall not covered in the current Continuing Resolution. Cost = $450 million and increases for management information system and related infrastructure improvements. Cost = $50 million;
* School meals - provide a 15% increase in funding for breakfast and school lunch programs. Cost = $1 billion;
• Medicaid payments to states (FMAP). Cost = at least $15 billion
• LIHEAP assistance to provide low-income Americans relief from higher energy costs. Cost = at least $5 billion
• Job creation via down payment on rebuilding America's infrastructure and schools, starting with massive investment in commercialization of green technologies and related job training that promote environmental protection and energy independence. Cost = at least $100 billion
** In general:
• No funds for Iraq or Afghanistan wars and no funds for defense procurement.
• Prevailing wage to be paid for jobs created and upholding of Davis-Bacon Act
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
I do think it is important to not only focus on the bad parts of the bill, and to realize that overall, despite Republicans screwing up parts of it, it is a pretty good recovery package.
January 28, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
A worthy counterpoint, indeed.
January 28, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
With dollar numbers being thrown around in the billions and trillions, I'd like to suggest that the word "millions" be banned. It makes piddling amounts sound disproportionately big.
E.g., instead of $50 million, I'd suggest writing $0.05 billion.
Much better, no?
January 28, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good idea - makes it easier to read and keep straight.
Still, did anyone really foresee the day when millions of dollars would be discussed in fractional terms?
January 28, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though I kind of don't agree that a million is piddling, a standard reporting does make it easier.
My 0.00000000002 billion dollars (ok, I still think 2¢ is more appropriate here)
January 28, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feel free to use scientific notation, where appropriate.
My $2e-11 billion worth.
January 28, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is an 825 billion project, why is ONLY 100 billion going to infrastructure, green projects, etc.?
Seems like the percentage of the total amount should be higher for these projects.
January 28, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you, PB. If the Repugs are only playing footsie -- that is, negotiating for as much as they can get in the bill, but planning to vote against it anyway -- then why put ANY of their crap in the bill?? We know that tax cuts won't do diddly as a stimulus, so let's eliminate most of them and spend more on infrastructure.
You know, the notion that infrastructure spending does not stimulate because we can't spend the money fast enough needs to be challenged. Having the government COMMIT to speding billions in the next several years is enough to get some businesses to invest/expand/hire, in anticipation of the continuing contracts they could win.
Not every dollar has to be spent in the next six months to help the situation. I don't know why I haven't heard anybody arguing this point on my TV.
January 28, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the reason why is that they don't have enough of those projects at the ready stage where money could be poured in right away and make a difference.
Obama has said he will pass a green plan separately.
January 28, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good report. Thanks.
There are many good things in the bill.
January 28, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have noticed that there is one major component that seems to be completely lost in all talks about this stimulus. Nothing in this bill is able to give us the feeling that things are going to get better. No feeling confidence is being relayed or nurtured by the massive spending spree.
The German government is planning on giving a €2000 check to anyone with a 10+ year old car for them to go buy a new car. This plan stimulates the crippled auto industry by having more people buy new cars, advances environmental concerns by getting old inefficient cars off the road, and presents a real simple plan that people can quickly and easily see working in their everyday lives.
Most, if not all, parts of this almost $1T stimulus package will not be readily seen, understood, or obvious to regular working Americans thus severely limiting its ability to cause any stimulation.
January 28, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think getting money to people who will actually spend it is generally more effective in stimulating the economy than psychological effects.
The bully pulpit is for making us feel that things are going to get better (which Obama has been doing.) The stimulus is for actually making things get better.
January 28, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the things mentioned above are things that help people who really need help...you know, poor people. That's why the GOP hates the bill. Instead of a bill filled with tax cuts for reach people, it actually tries to help people who need help. Just because you don't pay income taxes doesn't mean you don't pay other taxes (payroll, sales, property - either directly or indirectly via rent, etc.) and poor people get hit just as hard by an economic downturn...it shouldn't be OK to ignore them just because they were doing shitty already. And I'm guessing there are a lot more poor people today than there were 4 years ago.
Government can't be seen as working or helping people because then people would like it and never put the GOP in power again.
January 28, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you hate America?
January 28, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're being fed a false dichotomy between 'stimulus' and 'infrastructure' spending.
Sure, we need a shot of immediate relief.
But equally, we need to put good, investment-grade projects (if that's not a dirty word by now) in the pipeline for two, three, five years from now. Transportation infrastructure, green-energy grid, medical IT, fiber-to-the-home, stuff like that that's not shovel-ready, but isn't pie in the sky either.
Having projects like that in the pipeline is the right thing in terms of investing in the country's future... AND it's the kind of thing that will help the Caterpillars and Intels and GE Solars take a deep breath and stop laying off people... and start designing and planning for getting these projects done during the next five to ten years.
Knowing that these investments are coming goes a long way toward giving these builders confidence to ride out the current storm... AND focuses the country as a whole on discussing, planning, and shaping the future, rather than dwelling on the current (hopefully) temporary crisis.
Eddy
January 28, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's a false dichotomy -- this bill isn't the only thing the administration is going to do. Those kinds of projects need to be done, it's true, but projects that begin two, three, five years from now by definition aren't economic stimulus, they're economic development. If the economy isn't improving in that time frame, we've got much bigger problems.
So by all means, push for them, but the fact that they're not in this debate doesn't mean they're not going to happen. Just because an investment is a good idea doesn't mean that it belongs in the stimulus, trying to load up things that don't fit the definition of short-term spending with near-term results just middies the waters.
January 28, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with PorkBelly et al. In the current circumstances, 100 billion looks pretty small for infrastructure spending. I see that another few billion has since been added for mass transit. All well and good.
But what about repairing and rejuvenating the electrical grid? Funds for Amtrack? I want more infrastructure dollars, even if they come out of the House Dems' pet projects.
Let's hope that the Senate Dems, or the Obama Administration, get this amount substantially increased.
January 28, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink