MarEx Mailbag: Readers Weigh in on Stimulus
The MarEx Mailbag was heavy again. Last week’s lead editorial, entitled “Obama’s New Deal: Good Deal, No Deal or the Real Deal?” brought attention to the new stimulus package recently passed by Congress and the implications for a broad range of maritime interests in that bill.
Not everyone is happy about the measure, of course, but the U.S. maritime infrastructure by itself arguably got a big boost. Many readers also weighed in on the overall message. And some people, believe it or not, weren’t entirely happy with me, either. You can read the piece by clicking HERE. You can also see what our readers thought about the article below:
I read your article with interest and would like to add my two cents worth also. It appears there was a lot of pork in there for the Maritime Administration. I am maritime and I couldn't figure out some of the stuff left out of your article that was in the Stimulus Package. Did you catch the $198 Million dollars set aside for the Filipino veteran of WW II? Did you catch the zero dollars set aside for the American merchant marine veteran? One was in, one was not. I thought that stimulus package was developed to get us out of the hole we dug for ourselves. We, being those Americans here in this country who like to live so high on the hog. My point is there are still a lot of US Merchant Marine WW II veterans who have not been recognized for their efforts because the federal government made some critical mistakes in their record keeping and will not or care not to correct their blunders. Public Laws 95-202 & 105-368 were passed to provide MM veterans status for those that met the criteria set down in those laws. Little did they know that other actions by government agencies destroyed the same documents required for proving service. A catch 22 as far as the veteran is concerned. Now the congress is overlooking that situation and some 10,000 US seamen are left without due recognition. But we can slip in those special interest items for those other than our own. Can nothing be done about this situation short of legislation? There is more info about this subject on a blog at www.usmmv.blogspot.com
Don Horton
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: It takes a bill like this to bring out the vigor and emotion in all of us. The purpose of my editorial was to bring to light some of the funds that maritime infrastructure projects may now be the beneficiary of. I think that I did that with some clarity. What I didn’t do was focus on some of the more inane and ridiculous aspects of the stimulus package. And there were plenty of those. Mr. Horton has his own agenda and he brings up some interesting points. I don’t think many of us would deny that U.S. merchant mariners from the WWII era need to be recognized for their service, in more ways than one. Here’s another letter:
Joseph,
Greetings. I just wanted to thank you for your critique of the stimulus pkg. which gives insight into a better understanding of the distribution of funds. I would have liked to have seen more go into SSS support. Perhaps it is something our political leadership avoids because they lack a grasp on the subject matter? Or they have more pressure from other sectors?
However, as they say, “at the end of the day”, I think what we all desire is that the ARRA will soon have a significant positive impact on our economy and resulting from that, areas not stimulated or less stimulated will improve by virtue of a stronger economy.
Sincerely,
Bernard List
MarEx Editor’s remarks: Amen. And, I agree on the short sea shipping (SSS) remarks, too. But, let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth. Read on:
RE: who is going to pay for it –
Without getting into economics (which is my weak point), the people who get the jobs will pay income taxes on their wages and spend it all (probably 110% of it) at businesses. Those businesses will pay taxes, their employees will pay taxes and spend their wages and so on. It really does work. An increase in government spending increases the aggregate demand by some multiple (which I think is about 3 right now). So $787 billion of government spending will increase AD by $2,361 billion. That's a lot of wages and taxes on those wages. The key here I think is that almost all of this money will be spent with little of it saved, which is a good thing right now. And it will be spent several times over.
Best regards,
Name withheld Upon Request
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Another vote for the stimulus package. I’m not an economist either, but the reader – who did not want to be identified – clearly thinks that Obama’s New Deal will perhaps have the same effect as the one put forth in the 1930’s. We shall see. I hope that he is right.
Dear Joe:
Yes, the SSAP (Small Shipyard Assistance Program) got 10x more than last year, but compared with the largess being passed out to other constituencies in the "stimulus" Bill, shipyards in general and small shipyards in particular, are being seriously short-changed by the Obama Administration's new, new deal.
Obama offered "change" from the policies of the Bush Administration --- which was hostile to the maritime industry --- but this pitiful small piece of the pie is not “change that we wanted to believe in”. He and DOT Secretary Ray LaHood have got to do much better if their objective is to increase jobs in the shipbuilding and ship repair industries. Substantially increasing the funds for the SSAP would be a good place to start. Next, authorize more funds for the Title XI maritime loan guarantee program, with a focus on ships for the Marine Highways Program.
All the best,
John C. Snedeker
Savannah Georgia
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Mr. Snedeker echoed the feelings of a large maritime law firm, who last week issued an analysis of the Stimulus Bill. In Blank Rome LLP’s Maritime Developments Advisory, they reported, “Maritime had a seat at the table but only reaped relatively modest benefits from the overall package.” Okay; on the surface, I agree with that assessment. On the other hand, what “maritime” did get is a heck of a lot more than they would have gotten otherwise. Ask yourself this: would the domestic shipbuilding industry have been the beneficiary of a standalone $100 million injection in ordinary times? I think that we all know the answer to that question. I will take what we can get, especially in this climate. Beyond this, I like to think of myself as a “glass half full” kind of guy. As for Title XI loan guarantees, I think we’d all like to see that come back. Next time, hopefully it will be better managed and controlled than it was in a former life. Finally, here’s a letter that pulls no punches:
Att: Mr. Joseph Keefe:
Your derisive comments published in the current issue of MARITIME EXECUTIVE, on the Stimulus Bill recently signed by President Obama, are unworthy of a person entrusted as executive spokesman for a respected periodical, with the responsibility of ensuring that factual information regarding current events is published without sarcastic editorial politicization. The credibility of your distorted remarks was lost by failure to offer realistic alternatives to the funding purposes listed in the Bill that you disagreed with or failed to understand. It is hoped that this unprofessional example is not representative of what readers of MARITIME EXECUTIVE may expect in future editions.
Cordially,
Name Withheld
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Before I resign, I thought I’d answer this gentleman’s points in his letter. First of all, I don’t think my comments were at all “derisive,” but instead complimentary of the amounts received by maritime interests. I encourage our readers to go back and review the editorial. I injected a little “challenged” humor here and there, I suppose. And, the purpose of my “distorted” remarks was not to offer alternatives. Instead, I came just short of celebrating, at long last, any sort of attention and love extended by the government to the domestic maritime infrastructure. After all, if we can prop up entities like Amtrak, we can certainly ensure that our country’s supply chain works a little better. Again, this is another reader who expected me to provide realistic alternatives to the funding provided by the bill. I hate to say it, but this is all water under the bridge now. “Realistic alternatives” are a discussion for another day and just perhaps, another financial climate.
One final note: the reader and I – although he didn’t remember it – at one time had our paychecks signed by the same guy in the 1990’s. We’ve since communicated again and all is well. I did omit his name as a courtesy.