What’s old is new again

The U.S. Conference of Mayors dug into the history books to come up with an economic engine that”™s a lot like the one that pulled the nation out of the Great Depression.

 

The one wrinkle of course is money.

 

The mayors last week in an 800-page report on their MainStreet Recovery plan identified 11,391 infrastructure projects that could create 847,641 jobs next year and in 2010. The cost would be $73 billion. The report points out that the numbers are on the conservative side because just 427 cities submitted projects.

 

In our region, disappointingly only White Plains submitted projects. In fact, it was a dreadful showing from across the state with projects only coming from Albany, Binghamton, Brighton, Buffalo, Freeport, Hempstead and Schenectady.

 

Yonkers, New Rochelle, Peekskill, Poughkeepsie, Newburgh, Kingston and Middletown ”“ where are you?

 

We can think of infrastructure projects in each of these cities. If these cities, as well as other across the state add their projects to the mix, just think of how significantly the potential job creation would grow.

 

(And no one has even mentioned the mother of all infrastructure projects: the Tappan Zee Bridge.)

 

Just across the state border in Connecticut, Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy is on board with 75 projects that would total $506.8 million and create 1,976 jobs. Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch has five projects totaling $116.5 million that would create 1,000 jobs. Norwalk Mayor Richard Moccia has three projects totaling $69.5 million. The number of jobs that would be created has not yet been determined.

 

Of the 427 cities that have served up possible projects, not all will pass muster as some are trying to sneak in some saddled with pork.

 

White Plains Mayor Joseph Delfino has 18 projects that would total $6.4 million and create 153 jobs. We didn”™t find any pork in any of his projects, which are all involved with city-owned housing.

 

The report by the U.S. mayors stressed that investing in metropolitan economies is “the most direct path to creating the jobs and stimulating the business that can begin to reverse the current economic downturn.”

 

Despite some problems that are encountered with any massive government project, the Works Progress Administration employed millions during the 1930s until World War II created a new economy.

 

This Newest Deal would be a welcome relief to the growing number seeking unemployment benefits. The federal money needed for the projects should be readily available if President-elect Barack Obama gets his way with Congress. Last month, Obama spoke of creating 2.5 million jobs by fixing the nation”™s infrastructure via the infusion of billions of dollars.

 

Consider it a bailout for the nation.

 

What”™s good for Wall Street is even better for Main Street.

 

A lot of hot air

Placing a tax on livestock, specifically the gas that they emit, is nutty.

 

We have a better euphemism, but unfortunately it falls into the realm of inappropriate barnyard slang.

 

A widely circulated report last week by the Environmental Protection Agency that it was going to tax the gaseous hoofed set, ignited a methane-fueled firestorm.

 

Farmers and politicians alike noted their opposition in newspapers, radio and TV reports.

 

State Assembly Republican Leader Jim Tedisco and Assemblyman Cliff Crouch, ranking member on the Agriculture Committee, joined the chorus giving raspberries to the proposal.

 

“At the same time our state endures an economic recession, the EPA thinks it”™s wise to impose a new tax on family farms and agribusinesses? If ever there was need for a crystal clear example of a federal agency completely out-of-touch with reality, the EPA just filled that bill,” Tedisco said.

Unfortunately, it was all much ado about nothing.

 

The federal agency refuted the reports and put out a statement, whose first sentence ”“ “EPA is not proposing a cow tax” ”“ could have sufficed, but instead it belched out an egregious, acronym-filled opus.

 

“The CAA (Clean Air Act) does not include a broad grant of authority for EPA to impose taxes, fees or other monetary charges specifically for GHGs (greenhouse gases) and, therefore, additional legislative authority may be required if EPA were to administer such charges (which we will refer to collectively as fees). In response to the April 2007 finding in the Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in July 2008 to solicit comments about a number of options and questions to be considered for possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. The period to submit comments on the ANPR ended on November 28, 2008.”

 

Now there”™s an unnecessarily large carbon footprint.

 

The EPA contends on its Web site that “Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually.” How the agency arrived at that number involved an equation that included animal weight, average weight gain, mature weight and the net energy required for growth.

 

Here”™s something to chew on:

 

The price per hundredweight of milk is so low that a dairy farmer in New York after deducting operating costs, received a net of 3 cents per gallon of milk sold in 2006.

 

If a so-called cow tax was ever proposed, it would lead to the wholesale loss of hundreds of farms.