Stimulus, jobs, billions: Obama's huge challenge

An economic stimulus plan is one thing. And unless one’s mired in a Herbert Hoover-type mindset, it’s tough to question the need for strong, immediate fiscal measures to reverse the course of the dangerously deepening recession we’re now witnessing.

But how about a full-scale “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” with the power to both fight recession and start building a truly competitive, world-class 21st century American economy?

We should expect nothing less from the incoming Obama administration, according to Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary tapped to head the new White House Economic Council.

That means immediate action to create new jobs–Obama’s new goal is 3 million in two years. But it also means an early start on future-oriented investments in areas where the nation’s been lagging, such as critical infrastructure, spurring renewable energy, and information technology to start modernizing our health care system. And, Summers writes for the Washington Post, “investments to build the classrooms, laboratories and libraries our children need to meet 21st century educational challenges.”

Yet there’s an immediate problem. The stimulus bill numbers congressional committees are considering, as part of an overall package close to $800 billion that Obama might sign by later this month, seems heavily weighted to very large but relatively unimaginative expenditures.

About $200 million, for example, would go to middle-class tax cuts and tax credits for tuition and small businesses. As much as $200 billion might be channeled to states to help them cover soaring Medicaid and food stamp costs and prevent some of the threatened layoffs of state and local workers that only intensify the recession. Over $30 billion would go to highways and bridges. Lesser but still significant billions to school modernization, dams and fresh water systems, environmental clean-ups, transit, rail and aviation.

Some of those outlays–long-neglected school, water systems, transit and rail expenditures, for example–do represent important new departures. And it’s true that the draft legislation does include critically needed tax credits for renewable energy, plus steps toward an extensive technological health database.

Thankfully, the measure is clean so far of ill-advised short-term jolts to spur consumer spending–for example the National Retail Federation’s demand for $25 billion to reimburse states for sponsoring sales-tax holidays. (Imagine, billions of our money to push more imported Chinese goods!)

What the draft legislation lacks are many new “green-collar” jobs and projects, such as new solar arrays, wind farms and power grids. It’s proven difficult to identify enough ready to field for early anti-recession impact.

And if the package has one serious flaw, it’s designating, without clear rules, huge infrastructure dollars to flow through state transportation departments. Critics claim the lion’s share of funding will go to standard highway construction, especially on exurban and suburban highways. In South Carolina, for example, the state highway department wants $2.4 billion to construct a new interstate through one of the most rural sections of the state. The Missouri Transportation Department’s list of “ready-to-go” infrastructure projects–$510 million worth–include none whatever for St. Louis city, the hub of a region that generates 46 percent of the state’s economic output, according to an analysis by Richard Baron, Angela Glover Blackwell and Amy Liu in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

“Fix it first!” is the rallying cry of those who want to see first dollars go to deteriorated, often dangerous bridges and roads. But, warns John Norquist, former Milwaukee mayor and president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, “When existing highways are deemed ‘functionally deficient’ merely because moderate lane widths and ramp lengths prevent them from becoming raceways, don’t allow them to be lumped in the ‘fix it first’ package.”

We’ve been “flying blind, lacking a national investment plan to make the country competitive in the 21st century,” warns the policy organization America 2050, adding: “Now is the time for change.” At a minimum, says the group, “Count!” –set aside some funding for hard-headed measurement of all the new federal investments in terms of job creation, cost-effectiveness, increased energy efficiency, and greenhouse gas reduction.

I’d go further–cut back federal funding for states that fail to fund high quality, energy-saving, non-sprawl projects from the get-go. The same should apply to funds flowing directly to local governments, and to metropolitan planning organizations.

But it will take extraordinary leadership–i.e., a clear-headed White House, determined departments, and engaged, committed state and local leaders–to get strong performance. The signals are we’ll have a solidly capable president in Barack Obama. But a great one in building our strength, domestically and thereby globally, for the century? Shaping and guiding the enormous expenditures of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” will be the acid test. If there were ever a time for transformational leadership, this is it.

For reprints of Neal Peirce’s column, please contact Washington Post Permissions, c/o PARS International Corp., WPPermissions@parsintl.com, fax 212-221-9195. For newspaper syndication sales, Washington Post Writers Group, 202-334-5375, wpwgsales@washpost.com.