We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I've had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.
To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the "stimulus"), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?
They're great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
There's a real crisis unfolding right now in upstate New York - one that state and federal authorities can do something about using stimulus money. The bridge over Lake Champlain at Crown Point, which was scheduled for repairs by 2013, has deteriorated to the point where officials suddenly stepped in this week and declared an emergency shutdown. This has stranded thousands of New Yorkers and Vermonters at home, and they face the prospect of not being able to get to work each day and losing their business. It's a regional disaster.
Earlier today, Gov. Paterson declared a state of emergency in Essex County - after Vermont did, for Addison County. All these press releases are nice, but still don't answer the question of why an aging bridge that was known to need critical attention was allowed to get to this point where thousands of people in two states, already slammed by a deep recession are now virtually cut off from their jobs, their loved ones in nursing homes, and even emergency medical care. Right now, the best solution being offered? Telling affected people to drive down to the crossing at Whitehall, NY every day to get to where they need to go in Vermont... a one-way trip of about 75 miles (down the lake and back up again)!
We need some deeper answers here. Today the Champlain Bridge, tomorrow it could be a critical piece of infrastructure that YOU rely on, somewhere in New York. Who in Albany has failed these residents, and why?
It took well over a month to pry it out of him, but Jim Tedisco has finally gone on the record as to how he would have voted on the stimulus package. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he would have joined every other GOP member of the House in voting against it. That's right, Tedisco would have voted against the largest middle class tax cut in history.
It's no longer a hypothetical question.
Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco just came out against the stimulus package passed last month by Congress after having previously saying only that he supported a package with amendments. The question has been used by his Democratic opponent, Scott Murphy, in their race to succeed Kirsten Gillibrand in Congress.
"My position is: yeah, I worked as hard as I could have to get those amendments in and to get them passed. I realize now that people don't understand that if they didn't get passed, I would have voted no," Tedisco said. "I'm going on the record now to say I would have voted no, because what we should have done was go back to the drawing board, get a stimulus package that truly creates jobs, invests in infrastructure and the economy."
I love how Tedisco chides everyone else in the world for not being able to read his mind. The man has been asked this rather simple yes or no question dozens of times over the last month or so and has consistently declined to answer. Apparently, everyone else is at fault for not interpreting his repeated dodges properly. Whatever.
What should be obvious by Tedisco finally coughing up an answer is that his campaign has come to realize that the weeks long refusal to take a position has been killing them.
Better late than never, I guess, though it is rather insulting to refuse for so long to answer such a simple question about an issue of such significance. At least the voters of the 20th now know for certain where Tedisco stands. He stands firmly with the rest of the House GOP, the party of no. Tedisco stands against tax cuts for the middle class and against doing anything substantive to jump start a contracting economy, save and create jobs, including 76K jobs in upstate NY, rebuild America and keep people in their homes. Now, the voters of NY-20 can make their minds up accordingly.
This race just keeps getting weirder. So, Sarah Palin Loving PAC withe the most astroturf-y sounding name ever, the "Our Country Deserves Better" PAC, has committed $175,000 to attack Scott Murphy.
In the ad, PAC chair Lew Uhler says, "Democrat Scott Murphy's support of the pork-laden federal stimulus package shows a complete lack of fiscal responsibility."
The ad endorses Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco, the Republican candidate for the seat.
OK, let's try to unpack this. The Palinites don't like the stimulus. Check. Scott Murphy has said that he supports the stimulus efforts. Check. Palinites spend big bucks on radio* attacking Murphy for this. Check.
This is making at least some sense so far. But, why, given that Tedisco has steadfastly refused to take a stand one way or the other on the stimulus package, would they endorse Tedisco if their big issue is, ya know, the "pork laden" stimulus package?
Do they know something we do not? Has Tedisco made his position known to the Palinites but kept it hidden from folks who actually live and work in the district? Have they read his mind on the issue?
It just seems rather odd to attack one candidate for his position on a particular piece of legislation and then endorse the opponent who refuses to take any position whatsoever.
The again, these are people who worship Sarah Palin. Perhaps I'm looking for reason where none exists.
*The Palinites say some of this money will be used for radio buys in NYC which, the last time I checked, was nowhere near the 20th CD. (Don't tell the Palin people!)
Sunlight seems to be the trendy buzzword these days. First there was the Sunlight Foundation, which was established in Washington in 2006 to lobby for better government data. Then Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo's office started Project Sunlight to share New York State information online. And last week, City Councilman Bill de Blasio jumped on the solar bandwagon with a proposed legislation to create SunlightNYC, to keep track of stimulus dollars in New York.
A nonprofit group, OMB Watch, has compiled a summary of the transparency provisions in the legislation [pdf], and released a copy of a memo from the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, informing agency head of the transparency efforts. President Obama himself has been a longtime advocate for government transparency, and was one of the backers of the legislation that created USASpending.gov.
“Although we think the Obama administration has very good intentions, they are going to write some very large checks to some governors and mayors who would not be described as good government types,” said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, which is part of a watchdog coalition called Coalition for an Accountable Recovery.
More transparency at all levels. Good on Councilman de Blasio.
Louisiana has gotten $130 billion in post-Katrina aid. How is it that the stars of the Republican austerity movement come from the states that suck up the most federal money? Taxpayers in New York send way more to Washington than they get back so more can go to places like Alaska and Louisiana. Which is fine, as long as we don't have to hear their governors bragging about how the folks who elected them want to keep their tax money to themselves. Of course they do! That's because they're living off ours.
Schumer to GOP governors: Stimulus isn't a la carte menu
WASHINGTON, DC--Senator Charles Schumer released the following letter Tuesday urging the Obama administration to notify governors that they must certify acceptance of stimulus funding in full or not at all, rather than selectively approving and rejecting the law's various components.
February 24, 2009
Dear Director Orszag:
In recent days, a small minority of governors, mostly Republicans, have publicly weighed the possibility of foregoing certain emergency provisions provided under the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed last week by President Obama. I believe this prospect not only would undercut the stimulative effect of the recovery package, but also is inconsistent with a key provision included in the law passed by Congress. To protect the integrity of the recovery program, I urge the administration to issue implementation guidance clarifying that while any Governor may exercise his or her discretion to accept or reject the federal funds provided in the stimulus, no Governor should have the authority to arbitrarily adopt a select subset of the overall package.
As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation. It would also undermine the overall success of the bill, as the components most singled out for criticism by these governors are among the most productive measures in terms of stimulating the economy.
For instance, at least two governors have proposed rejecting a program to expand unemployment insurance for laid-off workers. Economists consistently rank unemployment insurance among the most efficient and cost-effective fiscal stimulus measures; by one frequently cited estimate, it provides an economic return of as high as $1.73 for every dollar invested. Thus, by denying this provision for their residents, these governors are not just depriving some of the neediest Americans of relief in a dire economy; they are undermining the overall stimulative impact of the package.
No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not. But it should not be multiple choice. The composition of the package was rightly dictated by economic considerations; we should not let the implementation of the package be dictated by political considerations.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
Shorter Schumer: Take it or leave it, governors. It's a package deal.
The Progressive States Network is one of my favorite orgs. I mean, how can you not love an entity that describes itself thusly:
The Progressive States Network was founded in 2005 to drive public policy debates and change the political landscape in the United States by focusing on attainable, progressive state actions. PSN advances this agenda by providing coordinated research and strategic advocacy tools to forward-thinking state policymakers, legislative staff, and non-profit organizations. We function as a meeting space for progressive legislators, activists, and citizens, and serve as a hotbed of information exchange. We track legislation in all 50 states, helping to spark change across the country. We make it easier for people to learn more about how to get good ideas passed into law-and take power into their own hands.
They exist to empower state legislators across the country to make real progressive change. They produce great scholarship on policy, write model progressive legislation and are at the forefront of fostering real citizen participation in their own state governments. They are huge proponents of transparency and accountability. They also do wonders in the arena of enabling legislator to legislator communication across all 50 states. In short, they rock.
PROGRESSIVE STATES NETWORK LAUNCHES NEW INITIATIVE TO HELP STATE LEADERS IMPLEMENT RECOVERY ACT
New online hub will offer comprehensive resources to help state leaders meet the economic and political challenges of investing for recovery
Poised to receive billions in federal grant money amidst unprecedented budget shortfalls, state governments across the country face a host of difficult decisions over how to identify and allocate the resources they need to turn their ailing economies around. Amidst this daunting backdrop, Progressive States Network, in partnership with a broad coalition of advocacy organizations, today launched an initiative to assist state legislators in understanding funding guidelines and identifying progressive policy priorities as they move forward to implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
According to PSN Interim Executive Director Nathan Newman, "We stand at a historic crossroads where states can play an instrumental role in turning this country around. We want to make sure that state legislators and advocates have every possible resource at their disposal to introduce bold legislation that will not only help alleviate the current crisis, but also put our country on track toward sustainable and shared economic growth for years to come."
Central to the initiative is the announcement of an online resource hub at progressivestates.org/stimulus that will host policy guidelines, model legislation, information about where federal funding is being directed, and links to resource organizations in a host of key issue areas, including: transparency, unemployment insurance, infrastructure and transit, health care, clean energy, and increasing access to and adoption of broadband.
A quick perusal of what's available at the link reveals some really sharp and extremely valuable analysis and advice. It should mandatory reading for both lawmakers and staff as well interested citizens.
PSN will be hosting a call next Thursday that "will bring together progressive state legislators and policy experts from across the country to answer questions and share strategies for using the stimulus as an opportunity to effect lasting progressive change."
Kudos to the Progressive States Network. This is really great stuff.
Handing the new administration a big win, the House Friday passed President Barack Obama's $787 billion plan to resuscitate the economy.
The bill was passed 246-183 with no Republican help. It now goes to the Senate where a vote was possible late Friday to meet a deadline of passing the plan before a recess begins next week
.
All but seven Democrats voted for the bill - a 1,071 page, 8-inch-thick measure that combines $281 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses with more than a half-trillion dollars in government spending. The money would go for infrastructure, health care and help for cash-starved state governments, among scores of programs. Seniors would get a $250 bonus Social Security check.
Obama claims the plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs, but Republicans said it won't work because it has too little in tax cuts and spreads too much money around to everyday projects like computer upgrades for federal agencies.
Another way to put this, and it bothers me that this hasn't been more of a talking point, is that every Republican member of the House has just voted against the largest tax cut in history. Later today, all but two or three Republicans in the US Senate will follow suit.
There's been much whining and gnashing of teeth from the House GOP in recent days about how they have been excluded from deliberating on a bill that they couldn't muster a single, solitary vote for. House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter sets the record straight.
As Chair of the House Rules Committee, I must clear up untruths regarding the economic recovery package.
We've heard a lot of noise across the aisle about how partisan the development of the bill was --- that Republicans were blocked from being involved. This is entirely false. In fact, this was one of the most open processes a bill this large has had in over a decade.
They are being disingenuous, or worse. These are the facts:
The bill, as it came to the Rules Committee, the last stop before the floor vote, already incorporated 12 Republican amendments. The Rules Committee then added the 11 amendments: 6 Democratic and 5 Republican, in addition to a complete Republican substitute, and a motion to recommit. They were unable to muster the votes necessary and lost on bipartisan votes. House Republicans may have come together to vote against the final bill, but they split on their own amendments with 40 to 60 Republicans voting with Democrats. Some Republicans even voted against their party’s alternative bill, and it failed on the floor.
All the Cable nets are reporting that a tentative deal has been struck for a stimulus package costing about $780 Billion.
Apparently, Reid was able to placate Collins, Specter, Nelson et al. Maybe he gave them some Ovaltine or something.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: MSNBC is reporting that Senator Edward Kennedy is making his way to DC from Florida to cast what could be the decisive vote on cloture. Kennedy hasn't been seen in the Senate since collapsed on inauguration day.
UPDATE II: Chris Mathews is reporting that Senator Kerry says that deal is a package that contains 58% spending versus 42% tax cuts. So, to recap, we gutted the bill as a whole and larded it up with far less effective tax cuts (because they've worked wonders so far, apparently) to appease folks who will vote against the package anyway in overwhelming numbers. I mean, they might get three GOP senators to vote for cloture. And it only cost about 100 billion bucks in actual stimulus a piece.
Take a good long look. Using BLS numbers, Nancy Pelosi's office compares the pace and depth of job losses in the current recession with those of the most recent ones. The blue line represents the 1991 recession and red line is the recession of 2001. That green line dropping almost dues south is where we are so far as of today.
This chart compares the job loss so far in this recession to job losses in the 1990-1991 recession and the 2001 recession -- showing how dramatic and unprecedented the job loss over the last 13 months has been. Over the last 13 months, our economy has lost a total of 3.6 million jobs - and continuing job losses in the next few months are predicted.
By comparison, we lost a total of 1.6 million jobs in the 1990-1991 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing; and we lost a total of 2.7 million jobs in the 2001 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing.
So yeah, let's continue to screw around. Let's continue to pretend that the other side has any credibility at all left on economic matters. I mean, what's the worst that could happen?
Watching the reaction from Republicans and most news outlets, I keep thinking of an analogy. There's a nine-alarm fire, and Obama's the fire chief. He wants to send the cavalry, hoping to save lives and contain the fire from spreading out of control, while simultaneously taking fire-prevention steps for the future. Soon, Republicans start wondering if 2% of the tools on the fire-engines are entirely necessary for fighting the fire. Democrats think nine trucks is an excessive number, and maybe if Obama sent seven, it'll make Republicans happier. (Said Sen. Ben Nelson, "I don't know, hundreds of gallons of water sounds like an awful lot.")
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and Joe Scarborough try to convince the community that Obama is making a big mistake trying to put out a fire with water, which is just socialism in disguise.
Conservatives want to know why Obama won't just give people a tax cut, so the public can buy fire-extinguishers, axes, and Dalmatians of their own. The Washington Post runs four op-eds from Amity Shlaes, arguing that Fire Chief Roosevelt overreacted during the last nine-alarm fire, and it would have gone out on its own if he'd just left it alone.
And while the fire keeps burning, the Senate wants to figure out how to address the fire in a way that costs less and satisfies the concerns of "centrists."
And it's not like this crisis isn't real. Just ask our pal btp at Rochester Turning. He just got laid off.
I say this all not to cry on anyone's shoulder, or to brag about how unbelievably awesome I am, but to send out a warning- I am really, really good at what I do, I have a broad skillset, excellent communication skills, and have worked in small privately held companies as well as Fortune 500 companies. I regularly outperform management expectations, and have typically been "pulled" into new positions of greater responsibility.
Yet everywhere I am looking, networking, applying, all are saying this is the worst economic situation they've seen. And I'm afraid it's only going to get worse. Even though I'm at the top of my game, the economy has been mis-managed and roto-tilled into a game of musical chairs where they're suddenly removing 25%+ of the chairs.
This warning will hopefully not depress people, but stir you into action.
I've gone from being a supporter of Obama and a robust stimulus package to possibly a benefactor of it.
So, if for nothing else, please- for me, and my 3 little kids, please call senators Schumer and Gillibrand. If not for me, you all have friends and family likely going through the same thing-do it for them...and tell the staffer that you're calling to urge your them to "support the Obama economic recovery plan and oppose all conservative amendments." Call back and repeat for our other senator. The toll-free number: 866-544-7573.
If you were in a "eh, I could eat" kind of place about the stimulus, I'm asking you personally to call, right now, and let me know what they say, in the comments.
Thanks. The job you save may be your own.
This economy is getting worse by the hour. It's time to actually do something about it.
Handing the new administration a big win, the House Friday passed President Barack Obama's $787 billion plan to resuscitate the economy.
