The stimulus had failed on its own terms the promised green-jobs boom never materialized. More than two years later, in the spring of 2011, the rate was still above 9%. The Obama administration justified its spending blowout with an economic analysis that claimed the bill would keep unemployment from rising above 8%. "By the end of 2009, only 9,100 homes had been weatherized nationwide out of a goal of nearly 600,000 in three years." In California, a total of 12 houses had been weatherized. Grabell says, was the effort to weatherize American homes. Repaving roads was a typical activity less than 12% of the infrastructure spending went for work on bridges.īureaucratic red tape blunted the stimulus in other ways. The political necessity to fund the "shovel-ready" projects promised by the president meant that money didn't go to the bridges most in need of repair but to jobs that could quickly clear the thicket of regulatory permitting. With money carved out of the stimulus for Democratic constituencies such as government workers and for various anti-poverty programs, only about 10% of the spending, or $80 billion, was devoted to infrastructure-and very little of that total went to critical work. Atlanta, the busiest airport in the world, received nothing in the first round of grants." Grabell notes, "major hubs such as Newark and Las Vegas didn't get any stimulus money. If the aim was to create jobs, why were the funds not specifically directed to areas with the highest unemployment? If the aim was to underwrite vital construction projects, why did an Alaskan village called Ouzinkie, population 167, receive a $15 million airport? "By contrast," Mr. But what is perhaps most striking in this tale is not the waste of particular boondoggles but the program's failure to meet its own goals. (Perhaps these research efforts could have been combined.) Then there is the $92,000 spent by the Army Corps of Engineers "on costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog."Īfter the act was signed into law, Vice President Joseph Biden became a stimulus cheerleader and urged the local politicians who would be receiving much of the money not to waste it on "stupid things." He was asking the impossible. Grabell reminds us of the $783,000 grant to study why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana, and the $219,000 to study the "hookups" of college students. The failed solar-panel maker Solyndra has attracted a federal investigation, but there are other worthy competitors for the title. "Money Well Spent?" would make a compelling book-club selection for politically oriented readers, who could argue over which recipient of taxpayer funds was the least deserving. He makes a point of saying that the country's unemployment rate would have risen much higher without the government's spending binge. Page after page of "Money Well Spent?" seems to answer with a resounding "No!" But despite the evidence that he has painstakingly compiled, the author seems reluctant to conclude that the stimulus program was not worth doing. Grabell does such a thorough job of cataloging the program's misdirected funds and misplaced priorities that one wonders how he settled on the inquisitive title. In "Money Well Spent?" Michael Grabell of the nonprofit news organization ProPublica explains where all those dollars went. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was priced at $787 billion when enacted the official estimate is now more than $800 billion. Sold as a way to create jobs while building infrastructure and an environmentally sensitive economy, the stimulus plan was drafted in haste by Democrats in Congress and then signed by Mr.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |