It's not just spending money that matters, it's how the money is spent

I Hate To Say I Told You So in a number of blog entries about problems with the stimulus plan, which is focused on spending money, and less so on investment that will pay off in greater economic capacity and effectiveness over the long term.

In a blog entry, "The Propeller Heads’ Dilemma - The Conversation Blog" David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, mentions coverage of the infrastructure issue from Popular Mechanics magazine, coverage that we should probably read. But as some professor said in yesterday's Post (I didn't save the article), to transform programs you need to spend time figuring out what to do. That wasn't done.

Articles from Popular Mechanics:

-- "Shovel-Ready." The term "shovel-ready" has become a favorite for policy makers of late. But the shovel-ready mandate could actually make the infrastructure crisis worse. Here's why.
-- "Plus: Plumbing the Planet"
-- "Rebuilding America." The ACSE have released a summary report card on U.S. infrastructure. PM looks at the report and the most pressing projects for the current administration to tackle.
-- "PLUS: Obama's $700B Plan"

My point is that government spends money that either adds value, subtracts value, or is value neutral (keeps things the same, which can be positive or negative, depending on what it is). We don't have so much money as a nation, or at the state, county, and local levels, to be able to continue to spend money on programs that don't contribute additional long term value--economic and social--to the nation.