The Senate is proposing to give the United States a Band-Aid, when a transplant is required.
I was disappointed when the House's version of the stimulus package was released with only $95 billion allocated to green initiatives out of $550 billion in expenditures (and another $275 billion in tax cuts), but the Senate version is far worse. By my reading, only $67.2 billion of the $885 billion Senate stimulus plan is now allocated for green initiatives:
 |
Instead of a down payment on our future, the Senate bill sprinkles most of the stimulus money throughout the existing economy, with $13.9 billion in Pell Higher Education grants, $13 billion "to help close the achievement gap and enable disadvantaged students to reach their potential" and $5.8 billion to "fight preventable diseases and conditions." Some money is clearly not green at all -- like $27 billion in highway funding.
There are also major bucks for residential real estate proposed. According to CNN, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said he would propose an expansion of a temporary $7,500 first-time home buyer credit so that it applies to all purchases of primary residences, and some Republican senators have called for an increase in the credit to $15,000. Senate Republicans are likely to introduce a provision that would encourage lenders to offer a 30-year fixed rate mortgage at 4 percent.
The problem with the stimulus package and the proposed amendments is not the amount of the allocations, or even the worthiness of some of the programs, like higher education and healthcare. Rather, it is the fundamental perspective on the American economy that it represents.
In essence, the government is saying that the American economy will stay fundamentally the same -- dependent on highway transit and residential real estate, instead of developing into an economy of smart communities and renewable resources. Instead of looking ahead to a new economic future, which is both green in terms of environmentalism and green in terms of limitless potential investment, the Senate has decided to look backwards to try and regain the halcyon days of the real estate bubble. Not only are those days are gone, they were built on an environmentally and fiscally unsustainable foundation to begin with. What is required is a transplant of the heart of the American economy to a fiscally responsible, green foundation. The Senate's proposed bill and amendments amounts to nothing more that a Band-Aid.
Shari Shapiro, J.D., LEED AP, is an associate with Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP in Philadelphia. She heads the company's green building initiative and writes about green building and the law on her blog at http://www.greenbuildinglawblog.com.
Can we really 'afford' a transplant?
Green initiatives are on everyone's minds, and no person or company can deny the importance of sustainability and the need for a solid investment in our future. However, America should know that before we can invest in future initiatives, it is an absolute necessity to look at the here and now.
The fact remains that America is hurting right now- and we're not alone. You talk of a transplant where one isn’t quite possible- at least not right now. Seeing as this isn't a place anyone in America has seen since World War II, we as Americans are starting to gain some real perspective. President Obama has recognized the need for a stimulus that comes in the form of job creation and has been tried and true in his agenda when outlining his package's expenditures and allocations. Let's hope that agenda is acted on sooner rather than later.
The purpose of the "stimulus
The purpose of the "stimulus package" is to stimulate consumers and businesses back to a level of unsustainable borrowing and spending.
The unsustainable borrowing and spending is meant to be spent on SUV's and supersized "McMansions".
So the whole package is flawed. As Ms. Shapiro asserts, the "stimulus package" is backward facing. The package should be called the "stupid package".
The way forward is to do away with excessive borrowing and spending. Instead of setting a bad example for consumers and companies, the Federal Government should be showing restraint by reducing their spending.
Perhaps if the Federal Government actually started living within it's means for the first time in about a decade, perhaps the economy would begin it's restructuring with a look to the future.
The future should be less borrowing, less consumption, less SUV's and less McMansions. Yes, the GM union worker will likely lose his job and GM will be forced to close up shop. However this will lead the way for more productive companies to produce personal transportation of the future.
Unfortunately, our ham fisted politicians are about to pass a legislation for the "stupid package" to go ahead.
President Obama is still living in the past (1932 to be exact - he thinks he's the reincarnation of President Roosevelt). Perhaps in the next year or so he'll catch up to 2009 and figure out that stimulating excess borrowing and consumption is a "thing of the past".