Say YES to the Stimulus

The stimulus package has some bad parts. That much I won’t argue. And the way in which Democrats have executed its passage seems a bit ruthless and unkind, but only because we’ve forgotten how the Republicans did things before the 2006 elections. What’s more, there actually has been a good deal of compromise on the legislation. Despite the faults of the stimulus package, there are a lot of things right with it. And the benefits by far outweigh the detriments.

I’ve never understood those who live solely in the short term (see: Mission Accomplished in Iraq and Britney Spears’ marriages). Yes, the economy needs a pretty effective jolt right now, but what’s wrong with having that jolt come with supportive wires to keep the machine working in the long term? The banks are getting their money — 2.5 trillion dollars’ worth — from Geithner’s bailout plan. Personally, that’s more than I’d like banks to get without hardball strings attached, like, say, not to use it to throw corporate parties to congratulate themselves on receiving a bailout (I’m no Andrew Jackson, but I’m also not a fan of the Wall Street atmosphere).

To then turn around and attack the stimulus package because it has appropriations for such long-term recipients as education, energy infrastructure and health care is absolutely ridiculous. For one, there are provisions, like tax cuts and public works projects, that are certainly geared towards short-term recovery. The projects are reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which created thousands of new jobs while increasing government spending. If my Ec10 memory serves me correctly, government spending, used in conjunction with tax cuts, can ameliorate a sour economy. For another thing, this “pork” is more than just Democrats taking revenge on Republican spending during the Bush years. The pork includes money to deliver clean and safe drinking water to areas in the West that have been devastated by drought, among other worthy projects.

From a political standpoint, the Democrats really only have the first two years to get major legislation through. The Republicans could always achieve a midterm election victory. So the Democrats are working to get their “sissy liberal reforms” in, even if it means squeezing them into a stimulus package.

The “sissy liberals” are requiring that medical records become electronic before they go extinct, to eliminate the headaches that patients have to go through; administrative failures that can cost lives. They’re helping states pay for Medicaid, because as more people become unemployed and poor, more people qualify for the already-burdened program. They also put in 1.2 billion dollars to increase the quality of care for veterans, a largely forgotten population whose experiences in war should not be punished with mediocre care.

The Democrats want to work on infrastructure projects such as increasing broadband access across America. This doesn’t seem very important to those of us who sit comfortably in our wireless-enabled dorms, but today’s communications network is just as important as the rail network was in the 19th century. There’s money to repair the nation’s highways, which not only creates jobs, but actually is quite important to public safety (remember the bridge collapse in Minnesota?). There’s also money for our public transportation, which, to anyone who has ever been to Europe, seems an antediluvian sham. The economy isn’t just about banks and Wall Street. It’s about developing the infrastructure and technology to support the entire country and promote long-term growth.

The Dems are also giving money to schools for repairs and renovation. What does construction have to do with the economy, you ask? Well, let’s not even look at the creation of construction jobs, that’s a little too obvious. Last year, in Gov 1368, “The Politics of American Education,” Mayor Bill Purcell, now the Director of the IOP, gave a guest lecture. As mayor of Nashville, he had given schools money for repairs and renovations. Why? Because if students are cold in school, if they have rainwater dripping on their heads, if they generally have to learn in a miserable environment on top of everything else they have to go through, then their education isn’t as effective as it could be. Seriously.

The package also seeks to provide money for Pell grants, the under-funded federal program that allows poor students to attend college; for IDEA and special education programs; and for Title I grants. In the long term, as Harvard’s own Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz wrote, it’s the “education gap” between the US and its competitors that has been a significant factor in our country’s economic success. As the economists argue, America only reached its eminence due to emphasis on educating the masses at a time when other great powers were still busy pillaging for short-term gains and educating only the crème de la crème.

The stimulus package has already been negotiated, and compromises have been made. The state governors wanted billions of dollars more than they’re getting to stabilize their states’ economies. Obama’s own planned tax cuts had to be slashed down to a smaller number. Schools saw billions in repairs and grants taken away. In this economy, everyone has to make sacrifices. It’s time the Republicans learn that.

As the Obama administration has already said, economic recovery won’t happen fast. The economy, they said, still has yet to reach rock bottom; is not on an upward path at the moment. But in the meantime, in the face of media criticism, the stimulus package is on its way. It has short-term provisions for quick job creation, tax cuts, and government sending.
Just as important, though, the stimulus package gives money to long-term causes that will guarantee America’s economic growth. There’s no way you can expect an economy to survive if it can’t grow in the long-term.

By Susan Zhu
www.harvardindependent.com