There’s a lot to like in Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The president-elect vows it will include no earmarks for politicians’ favorite home-district projects. He’s promising the “veil of secrecy” that often surrounds funding decisions will be torn asunder.
He’s pledging full “transparency,” even an online database where citizens can see how and where their tax dollars are being spent.
Such pledges represent a dramatic culture change, an opening to rekindle Americans’ wounded belief in common purpose. Three decades ago Ronald Reagan told us government itself was “the problem.”
But Obama seems seriously intent on shifting government from a distrusted “them” back to “we.” As well he ought.
In the oath of office he takes Tuesday, Obama will pledge to “preserve, protect and defend” a Constitution that begins with the very words, “We the people of the United States …
” And just imagine what could happen if Congress and state legislatures and city councils were to embrace the same standards of fair and open government this new president is now promising.
But more immediately: Will the new administration’s stimulus bill really deliver for us — not just the anti-recession impact so direly needed, but also investments with long-term and truly “green” impacts? Beyond openness, will this really be the turning point toward a more sustainable American economy for years to come?
There’s so much in the bill it’s tough to predict outcomes — infrastructure, schools, health services, fiscal relief for hard-pressed state governments, building a new American energy economy, a reported $300 billion in tax cuts and more.
But there are reasons to worry: Will tax cuts actually spur economic recovery (past experience shows they’re not very effective)?
And is it necessary to appease congressional Republicans by spending so heavily on tax cuts, leaving only $25 billion on a jobs and growth fund for roads, bridges and schools? Skeptics are rightly asking how many infrastructure projects are “shovel ready” for fast anti-recession impact.
But a House subcommittee had recommended $85 billion worth. And with the multitrillion-dollar national infrastructure repair deficit we’ve accumulated — decaying roads, bridges, water systems, transit systems and schools that we must, in the next years, deal with — why scrimp on this front?
What’s critical is to make sure infrastructure monies contribute to the new and “greener” America Obama keeps talking about.
It’s right to include the energy retrofitting of 2 million American homes, the building of solar panels and wind turbines and constructing the broadband networks that Obama talks of.
But what of encouraging a new physical form for our 21st-century cities and suburbs? Americans, writes Greg LeRoy of Good Jobs First, “are stampeding with their feet — and their bond-vote dollars — to demand more and better public transportation.”
So at least a third (not the currently discussed 20 percent) of infrastructure funds, he argues, should go to “transit, bikeways and pedestrian improvements that will give people what they want — while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving America’s physical fitness.” Just maybe our long-maligned Congress will help out here. Rep.
James Oberstar, D-Minn., chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, recommends at least $12 billion for public transit.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, favors fewer tax breaks, more focus on job creation and the future: “Investment, investment, investment has got to be the central focus.”
With reports indicating state highway departments are ready to divert major portions of stimulus funds to new and broadened roads, national guidelines should put a premium on “fix it first” programs for decaying highways and bridges, plus transit and rail service, rather than new lane miles.
The law should require major allocation of state funds to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), with rules leading them to repair first and focus significantly on transit, undergirding the 80 percent of the American economy their regions represent.
Every receiving agency should be required to list not just projects, but how they serve salient national goals — job creation, yes, but also energy savings, reduction of carbon emissions, transportation efficiency, and helping neglected low-income populations. Future federal funding should hinge on proven performance.
So where’s the constituency for such clear, strong standards?
My guess is that Obama need look no further than his own network of millions, including the 103,000 who have recently submitted and voted on policy propositions on his change.gov Web site.
Let them speak up on the stimulus issues — what they believe is most vital for their communities.
Combine that with the dramatic steps toward openness in government this new president is inaugurating. Plus his efficiency agenda, starting with his appointment of a chief performance officer for federal government.
A new day is dawning, hopefully a massive repair of Americans’ shredded confidence in their own government. Let the sun shine!
Neal Peirce’s e-mail address is nrp@citistates.com.
