The government is an inefficient beast
May 11, 2009
– Comments (7)
I have been a big skeptic of the government's "stimulus" spending since its details first came out. It's not that the money won't help the economy some, just that the government is such an inefficient, inept beast that it will almost assuredly be used extremely inefficiently.
Here is yet another example of how large organizations like the federal government, and even state governments, operate inefficiently:
STIMULUS WATCH: Road money skips over needy areas
Places hit hardest by job losses are getting the least from federal road money
Many of the counties in the United States that currently have the highest unemployment rates will receive the least help from one of the most simulative aspects of the new program, the construction of bridges and roads. {sarcasm} I am absolutely shocked! {/sarcasm}
According to a survey of the 5,500 planned transportation projects with a combined cost of $18.9 billion nationwide by the AP, the government's planned stimulus spending on roads is 50% higher per capita in areas with low unemployment than it is in areas that have high unemployment.
For example, Elk County, Pa., 13.8% unemployment, is not receiving any stimulus money for roads yet Riley County, Kan., 3.4% unemployment, is receiving $56 million to build a new highway, improve an intersection, and restore a historic farmhouse (huh?).
Similarly, Perry County, Tenn., which sports an shocking unemployment rate of 25.4% isn't scheduled to receive a dime in spending on roads.
Part of the problem is that the government understandably wants to spend the stimulus money as quickly as possible. As someone who has been critical of it not being spent quickly enough, I completely understand. Unfortunately, the most beaten down communities do not have "shovel ready" projects waiting for funding because they didn't even have the money to plan any.
Interestingly, states will lost their earmarked stimulus money if they don't spend it quickly enough but even though states are technically required to spend stimulus money in economically depressed areas there's no penalty if they don't.
In low-unemployment counties (top 25%), the federal government is spending about $89/person versus $59/person in the worst-hit areas (bottom 25%).
The analysis also found that counties with the highest unemployment are most likely to have been passed over completely in the early spending.
Quite frankly, less than a hundred bucks per person in spending isn't going to do much in the grand scheme of things anyhow, but still...
It's good that the AP is bringing this issue to light, because its survey only looked at approximately half of the scheduled stimulus spending on roads. Perhaps someone in Washington will make note of this criticism and spend some of the future money in the areas where it's actually needed. One has to wonder how the AP and its likely limited resources was able to come up with information like this so quickly yet the billion people who work in Washington couldn't.
Never underestimate the government's ineptitude, Democrat or Republican. It's not that believe the government should not exist. Clearly the lack of regulation that got us into this mess shows that it is needed to some extent, I just don't believe that inefficient government stimulus spending which will likely eventually lead to higher taxes is the solution to all of our problems.
Deej
RSS Headlines
Fool UK