Second verse, same as the first

I would like to go on record stating that this new stimulus package is a crock of baloney. It is not as completely irrational as the TARP of late 2008, but its likely effect in addressing our economic woes is just as debatable.

I'm tired, and cranky, and just want to go to bed. Many other posts of the last few weeks have fallen by the wayside for such reasons. But I feel like if I don't get some of my thoughts out on this, I'll just stay angry and irritable thinking about it.

All of these plans have been based on one, incredibly wrong, assumption: that the kind of economic system we now have, based on consumption through debt to entities around the world that we can neither understand nor have any clear relationship with, is a good one that needs to be maintained. A good third of the bill, reportedly, is about tax cuts trying to get people to spend more on buying stuff they probably don't need; all these consumer goods that supposedly drive our economy. Very little attention seems to be paid to securing the things that we have and do need - making sure we can get shelter, food, health care, education, employment, efficient and effective transportation - or investing in being able to provide those things in more secure and healthier ways.

Rather than trying to promote "spending" in a broken economy when people are just trying to figure out how to get from today to tomorrow or next week, here's what I think the bill actually should have focused on (= where the bulk of the dollars should have been allocated):

1. Housing stabilization. Not getting people with extra reserves of income to spend money moving from one place to another, but making sure that those who need it can stay in the place they're in if it's a good one, and that those who have no places or are in unhealthy places can find good housing to occupy. This would involve assuming mortgages where people are in danger of defaulting and writing down the terms to be actually affordable on people's current incomes with very, very low interest rates (if interest at all ...), and also working with landlords who have mortgages that are causing them to charge unaffordable rents to offer them write-down terms if they pass those savings onto their tenants over the period of the write-down. In places where new housing production is needed to provide adequate shelter for an area's population, provide subsidies for developers of new, affordable housing, especially developers (like non-profit community development corporations) with a history of making strong, equitable, community-based housing investments for the long-term rather than for a quick payoff. Finally, where foreclosures have occurred, provide subsidy that assists those same developers, and other potential owners willing to make commitments to housing affordability, to purchase and renovate those properties and make them available to new occupants, with a priority on making sure that those who have already lost homes (particularly those struggling with finding new, stable, adequate housing at affordable costs) are appropriately re-housed - in their previous communities, whenever possible and preferred by the previous occupant.
2. Direct aid. For vulnerable populations (such as families, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled), provide increased subsidy to make sure they can obtain all their basic necessities such as food, clothing, medical care, associated housing costs (like heating), transportation, etc.
3. Infrastructure repairs and improvements. Address the crumbling stuff first - roads, rails, bridges, public buildings, and schools that are falling apart, unsafe or unhealthy to use. Make sure the funding for these repairs is adequate to provide high-quality, durable materials that will stand the test of time and use, not quick fix crap. Next, invest in new things that need to be built: like new schools and educational materials for areas that don't have enough of them; or establishing sustainable transit networks in sufficiently dense locations (for pedestrians, bikes, and buses first, and then rail where appropriate) where new and existing transit modes are given the necessary and up-to-date infrastructure, amenities and equipment to be efficient and enjoyable for users. Do not invest in new construction of roads and highways that promote and service sprawl; where there are traffic backups, see that as an indication that there is sufficient density to look at mass transit, and don't provide the infrastructure support for new, non-smart growth development. Don't invest in new corrections facilities just for locking people up; instead, invest in facilities that have a focus on the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders as safe, productive, welcome contributors to the communities they will go to when they leave.
   
4. Investment in the development of sustainable systems, products and practices. We need to find new ways to build, get our energy, produce our food, move ourselves around, and manage our natural and man-made resources of all kinds. Create a nice, big fund for research, testing and implementation of the kinds of systems, services, goods and practices that will help us create a socially, environmentally and economically sustainable society. The criteria for receiving these kinds of funds should make sure that proposals have a clear plan of testing out, evaluating and implementing change, and a set of "triple-bottom-line" sustainability principles should be created to determine which proposals seem to have the clearest and most far-reaching sustainability goals in mind.
   
5. Workforce training/re-training. All of the above will need an incredible amount of manpower; and we happen to have an incredible number of people unemployed or underemployed. Provide adequate funds for training, and then resources for job placement, that helps those in need of work to become the implementers of the above programs - whether they are counselors and social workers helping to make sure people get access to the right aid and that it gets distributed in a timely manner; or financial service providers helping to work out the new affordable mortgage terms; or building industry professionals from designers to construction workers carrying out our infrastructure projects; or entrepreneurial teams working to come up with proposals for distributed local food production or community energy production or public and private transportation based on sustainable fuels. Each one of the above priorities has a million (in this case, not an exaggeration) jobs embedded in them, not to mention helping to deal with the most urgent effects of the economic crisis.

Each one of those priorities also offers tremendous opportunities for businesses willing and able to reposition themselves for a new economy based on sustainable production, so it's not like I've forgotten that there's a commercial sector out there. Those who are adaptable to a new way of doing business will find resources available to them and will thrive in the new environment. Those business that aren't compatible with the priorities of a sustainable economy? You've had your time; so long.

Now, come on, I just did that in, like, an hour and a half. Granted, I'm not writing a 647-page document ... but that's probably a good thing, because my proposal is much more legible, and legislators (not to mention their constituents) might be able to read it all and understand exactly what was going to happen before they decided to vote on it. My plan needs more details about how such things are administered, particularly the part about assuming and writing down mortgages which is not my area of expertise at all. But if the priority is making this clear and easily implementable with participation from the average citizen as well as the professional lawmaker - rather than CYA, obfuscating language and a number of hidden pet provisions - then I still suspect my bill would come in under 100, with some good, hard work and tight editing.

I am so disappointed in our political leaders. The bill that was passed isn't about change of any kind; it's supporting the same kind of failed efforts, and not addressing the core of the real issues facing the people of the country. Not "the economy", some nameless, faceless entity no one claims responsibility for or control over; but the direct needs of actual human beings who are struggling and suffering. The bill, in both its House and Senate versions, pays some brief and inadequate attention to some of the priorities above (2 and 3, a little bit of 5 and even less of 4), but these things are like sidebars to some nebulous vision of "stimulation" that I can't even get my head around. The net result is going to continue to be more people losing their homes and jobs, and getting some occasional pats on the back from the government in the form of "improved" aid that is almost insulting. An extra $25 per week in unemployment can certainly be helpful on the margins of people's need, but is barely a dent in dealing with the overwhelming nature of the costs of sheltering, feeding and caring for one's self and one's family. That laughable provision was clearly created by people who have no idea what it is like to face actual hunger or homelessness.

The reason this bill gets so little out of so much ado about nothing? It was created using the same kind of failed process. All the partisan posturing from Democrats feeling able to ram through the bill however they liked and not needing to pay any attention to Republicans ... that sounds like good old party politics, the same kind that got us in the mess we're in now. The same kind of divisiveness, the same lack of creativity and thoughtfulness in crafting a solution that could have true buy-in from all stripes of citizen representatives - not to mention the citizens they represent. Obama tried for a while to do a little outreach, but his comments have seemed to fall right back in line with the overall Democratic mantra of, "We won, we get to do what we want, bite me if you disagree, and don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Some change. Where's the ingenuity to say, "If the way were going about this is still resulting in the same kind of party-line politics, then we're not doing what we set out to do in representing all the people who need to have a voice in this, and we have to come at it from a completely different place?" I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was all talk until the politicians came into power and didn't need to consider those who might disagree with them, like you pretended to in order to get elected. I suppose it's my own dumb fault for expecting the same group of people to behave any differently than they usually do. For those who think they have a "mandate" for this nonsense, here's a newsflash: I did not vote for you to do this kind of shoddy thinking and hasty mish-mashing on a bill that could have had a significant effect on the lives of tens of millions of people, but now won't. I didn't vote for you to insult and ignore colleagues who represent 40% or more of the people of this country. I didn't vote for you to pay lip service to making fundamental changes in our broken systems.

I voted for you to represent the best interests of the greatest number of people in this country. I voted for you to make sure to take care of those who are most in need. I voted for you to create a new kind of civic debate that allowed us to explore all options and find the best solutions. I voted for you to be leaders.

That's your mandate. See if you can remember it.