Even though President Barack Obama’s $447 billion stimulus package contained a number of GOP-proposed remedies, the bill was stymied by Senate Republicans. The defeat of this legislation reminded me of my experience with the last stimulus: The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Last summer, I worked as an intern for the University of Idaho School of Journalism and Mass Media in the Clearwater National Forest documenting the $18 million in stimulus projects being implemented there. The journalism lesson included a bonus tutorial in our government’s bureaucracy — a bureaucracy with a flood of money that had to be used immediately on “shovel-ready” projects.
After the Recovery Act was passed forest service budgets in the Clearwater ballooned, some to more than five times the projected 2009 totals. As a government agency with a budget that had been cut in half during the past few years, the influx of stimulus money gave foresters the opportunity to complete long-deferred maintenance and continue with other projects.
But after all the pressing projects were paid for, the first problem arose. Unable to save the remaining millions in stimulus money and a future that promised more budget cuts, the forest service spent cash on unessential projects. Instead of saving resources for future economic stability, untouched trails got a facelift and structures got paint jobs.
However, contractors who won Recovery Act contracts got their money. The majority of the federal funding went to local contractors and in that respect the local economy was stimulated, if only during the two years the projects had to be completed.
But that is what a stimulus is designed to do: Provide a short-term bridge to better times during a period of economic crisis. The problem is the people who use the bridge are those who already have jobs. It just ensured those contractors didn’t have to lay anyone off. The “job creation” touted by President Obama is a convoluted description of staving off firings.
Contractors I spoke to were thankful for the work, but many voiced concerns about how tax-payer money was being spent. As the nation’s infrastructure crumbles and unemployment hovers around 10 percent, can we afford to fix fire lookouts four-hour’s drive from civilization? While national forests are invaluable American resources, could these dollars have been better spent in other, more productive places?
An additional problem with stimulus spending around Clearwater, and on government projects in general, is the infatuation with private companies getting the money regardless of the costs. According to a veteran forest service official, he and a crew of high school volunteers repaired a lookout for $50,000 less than a private company that did the same work on a similar lookout.
The government pays the private sector adhering to strict laborer salary guidelines, but what if the company doesn’t fulfill its end of the deal? Americans constantly gripe about the inefficiencies of our government but continue to make them inefficient by requiring private labor.
Republicans have demonized the 2009 stimulus and voted down President Obama’s latest proposal to spend our way out of the recession, but maybe it is our devotion to private enterprise that needs to change if the government is to become more efficient. Can’t we trust a few foresters with decades of experience to build our lookouts?
After last summer, my question is: What do we value? If we want resources like national forests in the future, we need to start paying for it now. We need to stop mocking bureaucracy and trust people who have a tangible stake in the success of the organization they work for.
After all, the stimulus was just a short-term bridge — not a guaranteed fix.
– See more at: file:///Volumes/argonaut$/stories/sections/opinion/stories/2012/Jan/13/something_stimulating.html#sthash.JqZ6b465.dpuf
Last summer, I worked as an intern for the University of Idaho School of Journalism and Mass Media in the Clearwater National Forest documenting the $18 million in stimulus projects being implemented there. The journalism lesson included a bonus tutorial in our government’s bureaucracy — a bureaucracy with a flood of money that had to be used immediately on “shovel-ready” projects.
After the Recovery Act was passed forest service budgets in the Clearwater ballooned, some to more than five times the projected 2009 totals. As a government agency with a budget that had been cut in half during the past few years, the influx of stimulus money gave foresters the opportunity to complete long-deferred maintenance and continue with other projects.
But after all the pressing projects were paid for, the first problem arose. Unable to save the remaining millions in stimulus money and a future that promised more budget cuts, the forest service spent cash on unessential projects. Instead of saving resources for future economic stability, untouched trails got a facelift and structures got paint jobs.
However, contractors who won Recovery Act contracts got their money. The majority of the federal funding went to local contractors and in that respect the local economy was stimulated, if only during the two years the projects had to be completed.
But that is what a stimulus is designed to do: Provide a short-term bridge to better times during a period of economic crisis. The problem is the people who use the bridge are those who already have jobs. It just ensured those contractors didn’t have to lay anyone off. The “job creation” touted by President Obama is a convoluted description of staving off firings.
Contractors I spoke to were thankful for the work, but many voiced concerns about how tax-payer money was being spent. As the nation’s infrastructure crumbles and unemployment hovers around 10 percent, can we afford to fix fire lookouts four-hour’s drive from civilization? While national forests are invaluable American resources, could these dollars have been better spent in other, more productive places?
An additional problem with stimulus spending around Clearwater, and on government projects in general, is the infatuation with private companies getting the money regardless of the costs. According to a veteran forest service official, he and a crew of high school volunteers repaired a lookout for $50,000 less than a private company that did the same work on a similar lookout.
The government pays the private sector adhering to strict laborer salary guidelines, but what if the company doesn’t fulfill its end of the deal? Americans constantly gripe about the inefficiencies of our government but continue to make them inefficient by requiring private labor.
Republicans have demonized the 2009 stimulus and voted down President Obama’s latest proposal to spend our way out of the recession, but maybe it is our devotion to private enterprise that needs to change if the government is to become more efficient. Can’t we trust a few foresters with decades of experience to build our lookouts?
After last summer, my question is: What do we value? If we want resources like national forests in the future, we need to start paying for it now. We need to stop mocking bureaucracy and trust people who have a tangible stake in the success of the organization they work for.
After all, the stimulus was just a short-term bridge — not a guaranteed fix.
– See more at: file:///Volumes/argonaut$/stories/sections/opinion/stories/2012/Jan/13/something_stimulating.html#sthash.JqZ6b465.dpuf