When Congress throws around a few billion dollars -- few strings attached -- for state and local governments, is anybody really surprised when those governments' wishlists are a little goofy?
Lincoln's list doesn't appear any more wacky to me than what I would expect such a list to look like. That doesn't mean I like it. Most of the list is pure, raw pork that has very little to do with stimulating the economy and much to do with crossing some nice-to-haves off our checklist. But again, nobody should be surprised.
Some of the items really jump out. For example: "Remodal community room and kitchen at Mahoney Manor: $50,000". Well that's not so bad. But what's this? That $50,000 is going to create 150 jobs? What, are we outsourcing the jobs to Bangladesh? How can a small, $50k remodeling project possibly create 150 jobs?
Or how about the $1 million worth of consultant gigs that, according to the City, will create exactly zero jobs? You've got to love those seven-figure economic stimulation expenses that don't create employment. And we all know how much Lincolnites love consultants.
The City Council is peeved because they didn't get to give their input into the list. If I were mayor I'm not certain I would have let them give input either. For one thing, as mayor it's my job to come up with the list, not theirs. And let's face it, going before the City Council and asking for them to (relatively) quickly agree on a list of spending priorities to stimulate the economy is probably an exercise in frustration. I'm sure Mayor Beutler figured it was easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. As a taxpayer whose hard work is supposed to pay for this I of course want input, directly or at least through my representatives. But it's not difficult to see why a person in Beutler's shoes would take the responsibility upon himself.
Anyway, I have a hunch several of you want to vent, or at the very least say a word or two about this. Fire away.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
<i>Councilwoman Robin Eschliman said some of the projects are
I think picking on the $1 million for consultants figure is unfair. There has to be SOME amount of consultation done before jumping head first into a construction or development scheme. Granted, if it was a trillion for consultants that would be a definite red flag, but I’m not too surprised with $1 million.
More generally, lets keep this in a wider perspective: BEFORE this financial meltdown, our economy sucked (I mean the nation’s economy). Our #1 export was our debt and our economy was driven by consumer spending on iPods and SUVs. If the purpose of this “stimulus package” (and I would argue that half the problem with this debate is about definitions) is to bring us back to that position, we’ll end up in the shitter again. I’d like to see us get to a totally different economy.
I think this whole thing stinks. You’ll have mayors of a thousand cities coming up with wishlists like this, and some moron in DC will simply add all the numbers up, and say, “we need another $126 billion” or whatever, and it could skate through without a passing glance.
I still go back to needs and wants. There should be a differentiator. We need roads, police, firefighters, etc. Some of the rest is just silly. Meanwhile, much of this is feel-good stuff that will do not a lot to right the economy. And, who’s really stuck with the $1 trillion tab?
I’m not sure what the big deal is. We need things to spend money on, the Mayor came up with a list. Obviously not everything is going to get done but he was just blue skying ideas.
I’m actually with you on a lot of this, Fletch, probably assuming we don’t go into too much detail. 😉 I feel like lot of what’s getting cut is the good stimulative stuff, and the stuff that’s getting added only props up the shaky economy that Mr. T was talking about. Much of the forward-thinking investment has been labeled non-stimulative. I hope the bipartisan coalition is true to their word and adds a lot of it back at a later date.
Too much spending on ‘stuff’, like police gadgets and electronic signs. Where’s the thinking about actual new jobs?
The recently shelved Haymarket Arena would be one thing that would actually create NEW jobs… arena staff, increased hotel and restaurant business means more employees.
How about the purchase of some land with accompanying streets, utilites, etc with the intent of luring new manufacturing business? Heck… give the land if someone will build.
I think its that differentiating between “needs” and “wants” that is the key. Its a highly subjective debate based on what one thinks is really needed and what the end outcome(s) should be.
Personally, like I eluded to before, I would not favor spending that takes us back to the vulnerable position we were in prior to the meltdown. I would favor spending that places us in a much stronger position from a strategic and long term outlook.
For example, I’m in favor of some of the requests by mayor’s of larger metro areas to go above and beyond fixing roads as part of infrastructure spending, because if you can invest in light rail, bike friendly trails, etc., it will ultimately mitigate the kinds of environmental costs and economic inefficiencies that come with increasing suburban sprawl, and save money in the long run.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.