Wall Street Journal publication of the lead article from my “Confessions of a Stimulator” series not only had a healthy comment thread of its own but led to other main stream media attention as well as blogosphere discussion.
Derek Thompson wrote a post entitled “Vermont Stimulus Czar Has Smart Critique of the Stimulus” on the Atlantic’s website. Although he’s not convinced of my assertion that the Stimulus had a negligible impact on overall employment, he says “But that aside, this is a smart criticism of the inner-workings of the stimulus and more evidence that even smart ideas in the abstract can run up against the messy array of interests at the local level.”
This debate will continue because National Public Radio invited both Gary Burtless and me along with Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson to be guests on “To The Point” hosted by Warren Olney. The live interview is Monday, January 3, between 2:10 and 2:45 PM ET.
On the other hand, after Ezra Klein at the Washington Post ran a link the WSJ op-ed, he got a steaming email in response from Gary Burtless at the Brookings Institute which Klein ran almost in its entirety. Gary says the op-ed is “silly” and goes on to demonstrate. IMHO, that he doesn’t understand how Stimulus actually worked. But it’s worth reading his POV (and my comment at the end of that).
This debate will continue because National Public Radio invited both Gary Burtless and me along with Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson to be guests on “To The Point” hosted by Warren Olney. The live interview is Monday, January 3, between 2:10 and 2:45 PM ET; I’m not sure whether it is carried by all NPR stations or whether all carry it at the same time. It is available as a podcast from NPR, however. I’ll tweet a reminder, which you’ll get if you follow me at http://twitter.com/tevslin.
I’ve also been invited to be guest on Fox Business News but the time hasn’t been firmed up yet.
Meanwhile Confessions of a Stimulator – Jobs Don’t Count, the second post in the series, ran on Fractals of Change and was also carried by vermonttiger.com (whose editor Geoffrey Norman was key to getting the WSJ op-ed run), vtdigger.org where there was an especially vigorous discussion and much disagreement, and the investor site seekingalpha.com, where there was general agreement with my criticism of parts of Stimulus but also dissent on my blanket condemnation of TARP. Blog.nextblitz.com had an approving post by Galeal Zino, and Joel West on Open IT Strategies defended me from charges of being a bureaucrat. Funny note: while googling “Evslin stimulator” to see where my posts were mentioned, I found my grandfather’s patent for a stimulating adjustable toothbrush which was granted in 1929.
There are no simple answers to the questions “was the Stimulus Act a good or bad idea?” or “did the Stimulus work?” Over $800 billion was spent on roughly 300 different programs. As Vermont’s “stimulus czar”, I did my best to make the programs work for Vermont. Some did work; some failed; some have just begun. Some of the failures were mine; some of the programs were doomed from the beginning; others might have succeeded if implemented differently; some programs were downright harmful (not just expensive).
Since I had responsibility for these programs here and was the liaison with Washington, I had an inside view. Unlike most of the stimulus czars from other states, my career has been as a high-tech entrepreneur, so I have a businessperson’s viewpoint of Stimulus and the governments, organizations, and people who were and weren’t stimulated by it. Since I re-retired at the end of my state stint, I can speak frankly about what I saw.
Every project needs a post mortem so we can do better next time. The purpose of my series is to learn as much as we can from the gigantic and expensive Stimulus Act, both about what worked and what didn’t – and about the limits to what government can do and should attempt to do. This won’t be the last economic crisis we face nor is the “crisis” truly over.
Permalink |
Is this becoming the all-Evslin all the time show? Do we really need a post by Mr. Evslin giving us a self-congratulatory explanation that he wrote the posts previously attributed to him?
I don’t think so.
Permalink |
“As Vermont;s ‘stimulus czar’, I did my best to make the programs work…some did…some failed…Some of the failures were mine…” Your candor is appreciated but it’s easy being “czar” when you don’t have any “skin in the game.” Program cuts and “efficiencies”, were never going to impact the czar or the czar’s family.
Permalink |
Dave:
None of the Stimulus programs were about cuts and efficiencies, although I was certainly involved with both of those as point person on Challenges for Change later when I was Chief Technology Officer for the state.
I worked on all of these programs as a volunteer (technically was paid minimum wage and returned it) both because I am fortunate enough to be able to and because I do care about the effects state programs have on people – both the people who benefit from them and the people who pay for them. These are sometimes the same people and they DON’T always benefit by having their money pass thru the state and then back to them again. Recipients – whether they are taxpayers or not – are hurt by badly implemented programs and by program abuse.
Stimulus could have been used to give us time to cut back bloated programs intelligently and humanely. Unfortunately, both because the feds encouraged it and a majority f the Vermont legislature willed it, much of the stimulus money was squandered in simply postponing the day of fiscal reckoning. This is not a kindness to taxpayers or beneficiaries. The problems are still with us.
Permalink |
Ton Evslin is right about the ARRA (stimulus) funds; most of it was used to sustain government programs with deficits (protect government jobs) and not to restructure to become more efficient in all areas
Efficiency Vermont is one organization Vermont can do without. Every month the EV charge is about $5, or 5%, on my electric bill.
EV’s budget is about $30 million, of which about $20 million is for its 175 people payroll, benefits, office expenses, travel, etc, the other $10 million is to do projects.
It would be much better it that money were directly provided as grants or low-cost loans to households who make their houses more energy efficient; the lower the household income, the larger the subsidies.
It looks like EV may soon become an All-Fuels entity with a much larger budget of about $60 million. All of us will see an EV charge on our fuel bills.
Vermont legislators and others are spreading PR blarney about how Vermont “sets the pace, shows others how to do it”, etc., to justify the existence EV. Of course, now that it exists it will be with us forever.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46252/thermal-solar-california-desert
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46824/impact-csp-and-pv-solar-feed-tariffs-spain
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46142/impact-pv-solar-feed-tariffs-germany
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/47519/base-power-alternatives-replace-base-loaded-coal-plants
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46977/impacts-variable-intermittent-power-grids
Permalink |
We are extremely fortunate to have Mr Evslin in our midst.
Being amongst the commentors to Mr Evslin’s Ed-OP or OP-ED [or whatever] in the WSJ that has caused so much of a well deserved stir, let me take this opportunity to repeat a portion thereof.
“I roundly applaud Mr Evslin’s candor and his willingness to address “comments” a particularly welcome adjunct in a world increasingly inundated with non mea culpas and silence.
Being the original Armageddonist dating back to ’96 when Steve Forbes attempted to explain the role of revenue and was summarily dismissed, I do not share Mr Evslin’s view that we can prosper in a world economy. As I have expressed in this forum in the past – I am limited to a check book mentality and accordingly on the Federal & State levels I see our Deficits & Debts as presenting insurmountable impediments.
His closing comment that experience reminds us of the limits of what government can do is a ‘bullseye’ but, as we all know too well government does not subscribe to it. Has there ever been a more classical example than Medical? Has anyone ever stepped back [Please no Commissions] and measured what the role of benefits have wrought in terms of our
“underemployment” [U-6] CA 22%? I suggest it is benefits not wages that has caused jobs to flee afar etc.” I then subjected the [Journal] readers to my thoughts on medical in the form of a Mulligan-Plan in which of course, I am the original and sole subscriber.
As for me – I despaired on issue politic’s long, long ago but through the years armed, again, with but checkbook spectacles have followed the slimmest and best camouflaged of trails like Cooper’s – Pathfinder for whatever numbers I could stumbled across. Being a 4th estate junkie, it has become somewhat of a numerical crossword [crossdollars] puzzle. I have recommended if to a host of people but have come to discovered, initial enthusiasm aside, that it gets very little subscription. Of course, if they start to look, even at the most elementary of levels one can immediately grasp / gasp why there is so little appetite.
For example, I was recently taken by the Vtdigger piece of December 26th “Mind the gap: Budget shortfall balloons to $150 million” and prompted by same and in response thereto I posed the following #6 comment:
December 26, 2010 at 9:17 pm | Permalink | Reply
In 1990 our population was 562,758
In 2010 our population is 625,721
In 1991 our total spending was $1,412,360,942 of which $477,227,005 was comprised of Human Services
In 1991 our total bonded debt was $510,446,441 including interest payable. If someone would be good enough to update these numbers for me based on our 2010 results and our 2011 budget projections I would be most appreciative.
I offer herein lies not the answer but the reason.
In advance – Thank You
Jim Mulligan
– - – - – - – - – - -
I did not expect a response – it probably was not the proper venue. But, it takes me back to my outset quote – “I roundly applaud Mr Evslin’s candor and his willingness to address
‘comments’ a particularly welcome adjunct in a world increasingly inundated with non mea culpas and silence.” He is unique almost to the point of extinction and I see he has continued the same format in this forum. My “One trick pony” query through the decades is one of sheer simplicity, but I
must forewarn any potential interested parties that it tends to progressively narrow one’s base of acquaintances. “Does [has] anyone ever look at the Profit & Loss statements and the Balance Sheets?” I might also add that the loss of companionship is not quite as severe if one has a dog!
I note that one of the responders did not share my enthusiasm for Mr Evslin predicated on the premise that he did not have any “skin in the game.” I hope I can overcome that encumbrance by first saying that I spent a goodly portion of my life so imposted under the terms and conditions of the most motivational of instruments – full recourse notes including “personal”. Secondly, in terms of Mr Evslin who assumed his post effectively pro-bono and from what I can garner was uniquely qualified – even if I were the strictest of constructionist exercising the widest stretch of fiscal imagination I would be hard pressed to see why he should be required to have a smidgen of “skin in the game”. We should be delighted he was willing suit up for the contest.
I repeat, an Irish propensity, we are extremely fortunate to have Mr Evslin [who I do not know] in our midst.