There’s been a lot of talk lately about whether an economic stimulus package should be aimed at Wall Street or Main Street.
Last week, Gov. Jon Corzine went to Washington to argue that a healthy chunk of it should be directed to State Street.
Gov. Corzine joined New York Gov. David Paterson, Trenton Mayor Doug Palmer and other state and city officials in urging the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to prime the economic pump by investing heavily in public works projects. Specifically, the governors and mayors — Democrats and Republicans alike — called on the lawmakers to pour federal money into transportation, sewer and water projects, extension of unemployment benefits and other measures to help the states and cities cope with looming budget shortfalls that could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Under normal circumstances, their plea might have fallen on deaf ears. Investment in public works, once viewed as the very purpose of government, has lost a lot of its political luster in recent years. Aside from labor unions, some transportation buffs and a few policy wonks, there isn’t much of a constituency for infrastructure. There is, however, an enormous constituency for keeping taxes low — and, as a direct consequence, public investment in highways, bridges, tunnels, sewers, water projects and the like has slowed to a virtual trickle.
Today, however, the circumstances are far from normal. The stock market is plummeting. Unemployment is rising. Homes are being foreclosed left and right. Banks are strapped for cash. So are businesses. And so are state and local governments — which, unlike the federal government, are required to operate on balanced budgets.
Suddenly, infrastructure investment is back in vogue. And it isn’t just among progressive Democratic governors from the Northeast, like Jon Corzine and David Paterson, or big-city mayors like Doug Palmer. Also urging the House committee to invest $90 billion in federal funds in various infrastructure projects was Jerry Abramson, the mayor of Louisville, Ky., representing the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Even more persuasive to conservative lawmakers was the testimony of John Engler, former Republican governor of Michigan and now president of the National Association of Manufacturers, who told the committee that investment in public works projects would create jobs, strengthen manufacturing and stimulate the economy.
Regardless of their political persuasion or affiliation, virtually everyone carried the same message to Capitol Hill: If Congress and the White House can bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, AIG and other financial institutions to the tune of $700 billion, they should be able to find ways to help state and local governments meet the direct needs of the people they serve.
It would be easy, of course, to dismiss all this testimony as special pleading. The manufacturers simply want to make money. The mayors are looking for a handout. The governors care only about being re-elected. But even if their motivation is entirely self-interested, this is one of those instances where the self-interest of the advocates happens to coincide with the broader public interest.
No one disputes the fact that the nation’s infrastructure is in dire need of immediate attention. Nor is there any question that investing in infrastructure will create jobs and stimulate the economy, just as it did in the 1930s. Gov. Corzine and his fellow state and municipal leaders have made a compelling case for their cause; Congress should not wait for a new occupant of the White House to take them up on it.

