The crowded senate calendar, we reasoned, means that congressional action on the second stimulus proposal-- or at least its $50-70 billion component dealing with new infrastructure spending -- must wait until next year and may not reach the President's desk until late Spring 2010. With the newly authorized infrastructure funds added to the still unspent $16 billion left over from the Recovery Act (ARRA), federal stimulus spending for transportation projects could stretch well beyond 2010.
Assuming the job stimulus becomes law, we asked, does any one think that Congress would still have any appetite to enact a $500 billion multi-year authorization in 2010, on the eve of a congressional midterm election? Most likely, we concluded, a multi-year authorization would be delayed until 2011and some pessimists think that with a new Congress and an increased emphasis on deficit reduction, an even further slippage could occur. "Is the tradeoff worth it? You decide" we wrote.
Well, the response is in and it largely supports our point of view. It came in the form of responses from fellow bloggers and in a December 9 Newsweek column by David A. Graham, entitled "Putting the Cart Before the Horse: Could a transportation-based jobs stimulus stymie infrastructure reform?" Wrote Graham: "The stimulus bill would spend tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure but do little to remake a flawed financing and planning system. That's a missed opportunity, according to some observers, who are concerned that a stimulus, while better than nothing, would fall short of its potential by ignoring the issues that the surface transport bill aims to address."
The column goes on in a later paragraph to say: "The worry is that by pumping large sums into infrastructure this spring, Congress might kill any appetite for a meaningful overhaul of surface transportation funding any time soon." It quotes my fellow National Journal Transportation blogger James Corless, director of the Transportation for America coalition as "very concerned." "We worry greatly," the column quotes Corless, "that putting tens of billions of dollars into these existing stovepipes is not going to have the intended outcome," i.e. a true reform of the surface transportation program.
Meanwhile, the objectives of the proposed second stimulus are becoming more elastic as we speak. At a December 10 Brookings Institution forum on Infrastructure, U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood said that he sees no reason why some of the infrastructure funds in the stimulus program should not be allowed to be diverted to fund the operating expenses of transit systems which have been hard hit by the economic recession. It's difficult to see how such a move would help to promote job growth, but then the entire rationale and objectives of the second infrastructure stimulus have been poorly articulated and, not surprisingly, are coming under increased scrutiny.
Hopefully, by the time Congress is ready to act-- most likely, only after the President's State of the Union address in January--the hemorrhaging of jobs will stop and Congress will be able to shift its focus, as several of my fellow bloggers suggested, from "ready-to-go" maintenance projects (which seem more effective at preserving existing jobs than at creating new jobs) to a longer lasting goal of investing in infrastructure projects that improve national connectivity, increase metropolitan accessibility and enhance economic growth. Such action would make it less urgent to enact a multi-year transportation bill, whose prospects of passage in 2010, we still believe, are anything but certain.
