- Sep 30, 2003
News flash to those who lack addition/subtraction skills... If you give money to a state/local gov, you are allowing them to preserve jobs, because they cannot run a deficit and would otherwise have to lay people off. If you fund an infrastructure project, a contractor is getting paid to do it, and paying its employees that it would otherwise have to lay off.
What is it about that that you don't understand?
I see this "no deficit" bullshit too often. WTH do you guys think state & muni bonds are issued for? It's because they're running a deficit (spending more than they're taking in).
Yeah, some gov sector jobs were temporarily saved. I say "temporary" because unless Obama does it all again (sending money to state/local gov) we'll be right to square one and all those "saved jobs" threatened again. It was mostly a damned expensive way to delay the inevitable and necessary.
In my state (NC) it's common knowledge that the "shovel ready" projects in the stim bill were things already budgeted for by the state. They just switched those projects over to the stim funds and reallocated already budegeted state money elsewhere. I.e., nothing new is getting built - no new jobs or saved ones.
I don't have a problem with deficit spending in a recession, just how this one was executed - little to no 'bang for the buck'.
Where we need is employment in the private sector, they actually produce GDP; the gov doesn't, it just reallocates funds and take a big 'skim' off the top.