Amazon’s Disruptive Android App Store Now Open To Developers — Full Details
19
YouTube - Homeless man w/golden radio voice in Columbus, OH
12
If You Didn't Blog It, It Didn't Happen - Anil Dash
11
RSS War! (As Fought On Twitter, Naturally)
11
Zynga To Acquire Flock, The Social Browser That You Never Used
10
Sure, RSS Is Dead — Just Like the Web Is Dead: Tech News and Analysis «
10
10 Apps to Watch in 2011
10
Memo to Twitter: Popularity Is Becoming a Commodity
9
SCVNGR Raises $15 Million At $100MM Valuation
9
Internet Gains on Television as Public's Main News Source: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
8
On Monday, I linked to this op-ed from Tom Esvlin, Vermont's "stimulus czar," lamenting the way the money got spent. "Although I'd like to think Vermont did better than many states, much of the money ended up continuing bloated programs rather than providing a transition to a sustainable future," he wrote. That same day, Brookings' Gary Burtless e-mailed in a rebuttal that's worth quoting at length, as it's a very clear description of where the stimulus funds actually went, and why such a small percentage was directly devoted to building things. So here it is, with some edits for space:
The main problem with that silly op-ed is that it refers to only a small slice of the actual federal spending on stimulus authorized by the Feb. 2009 legislation. So far, the overwhelming share of that stimulus has been devoted to three items: Tax cuts for households; direct benefits to people adversely affected by the severe recession, mostly the unemployed or poor; and fiscal relief to state and local governments. Vermont did not need any "Czar" to receive or administer funds under these programs. The money for them quickly left the U.S. Treasury without any effort on the part of the Czar who penned this highly misleading op-ed piece. People in Vermont *directly* received benefits from the stimulus as: (1) lower federal tax withholding from their paychecks; (2) extended unemployment benefits; (3) premium subsidies so they could maintain their health insurance after they were laid off from a job in which they received health protection; (4) miscellaneous benefits (e.g., for college costs) under one provision or another; and (5) aid from the Treasury that permitted Vermont and its localities to finance their Medicaid and K-12 education programs without hiking taxes or lowering other public spending. The kinds of infrastructure spending for which the WSJ's "Czar" had some responsibility constituted a small percentage of the stimulus the Congress authorized for 2009 and 2010.
In FY 2009 and 2010, the EXPECTED spending on infrastructure and other items for which the Vermont “Czar” may have had partial responsibility accounted for just 11% of anticipated spending under the stimulus legislation. The other 89% had nothing to do with the programs criticized by Vermont’s supposed Czar. Thus, all of his complaints – even if justified – are essentially irrelevant to the programs mainly supported by the stimulus law … at least so far. Obviously, in the years 2011-2019, that kind of stimulus spending would have accounted for a vastly larger share of outlays. But (and perhaps Vermont’s Czar has not kept up with this because he does not read a daily paper) the Congress just passed and the President just signed ANOTHER stimulus program consisting of more than 90% personal and business tax cuts and less than 10% extensions in unemployment benefits. So far as I know, very little additional spending has been authorized for those hated infrastructure / technology investment projects. Below is the CBO’s year-by-year analysis of the spending authorized under the Feb. 2009 stimulus law:
My own private view is that the country would probably have been better off if *MORE* of the original stimulus had been devoted to infrastructure / technology investment (more of it would have been spent on goods and services produced in the U.S. rather than China, East Asia, and Europe). Setting aside that consideration for a minute, what infuriates me about the piece cited in your blog is that it reinforces the very widespread but totally erroneous impression that Congress and the Administration were unaware of the administrative hurdles to fast spending that the “Czar” points out in his op-ed. Those hurdles were understood from the very beginning, which is precisely the reason that infrastructure/technology investment projects constituted such a small percentage of the total package. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize the pace of spending on these projects, but it is utterly deranged to think that the slow rate of spending on the projects constitutes a serious indictment of the spending authorized under the Feb. 2009 stimulus program. Very little of the expected spending under the stimulus program (at least so far) was supposed to be devoted to those projects.
free rental agreement forms
The <b>News</b> from Norway : CJR
Behind the News The Media. The News from Norway A comprehensive look at the history of the Norwegian American press � NYT Sports Editor Apologizes for Column Switcheroo Piece on Patriots' decline was altered after a 45-3 win ...
Fujifilm unveils Finepix HS20 EXR advanced superzoom: Digital <b>...</b>
Fujifilm unveils Finepix HS20 EXR advanced superzoom: Pre-CES 2011: Fujifilm has unveiled the Finepix HS20EXR advanced superzoom. Replacing the company's HS10, its comes with a 16Mp EXR CMOS sensor and 460K dot 3.0" LCD rather than its ...
Did LeAnn Rimes get breast implants? « Entertainment
about this blog. The FOX411 Blog is your first call for celebrity and entertainment news. FOX411 brings you the latest scoops using FOX's unmatched reach in news, entertainment, TV and the Internet. Click on back now, ya hear? ...
No comments:
Post a Comment