A recovery in need of recovery

Recovery.gov finally got a little more exciting this week. Now you can see a map of the United States, with breakdowns of where federal stimulus dollars are going. Even if it does nothing else, at least a few more inquisitive people will learn just where Missouri is located in the United States. I choose my home state, Missouri, for a reason, and not just because the second question I was asked as a Duke student was whether or not my state was on the West Coast (it's not).

Missouri was the first to break ground on a stimulus-funded construction project back in February. The project is a bridge in central Missouri that will replace the Osage River Bridge. According to a Feb. 17 article on St. Louis local news station KOMU's Web site, "Making History with Stimulus Plan," the Osage River Bridge was built in 1933. And from the looks of it on this Tuesday's CNN report, the bridge is showing the signs of its age-a piece of it fell during an interview with a worker. KOMU reports that the construction will create 250 jobs in one way or another. I would be more worried about a potential bridge collapse than the number of jobs the project might create. Isn't that what we're supposed to consider?

There's been a lot of finger-pointing over the stimulus bill. Some are pointing their fingers to the sky, saying the bill will help herald a new dawn for America. Some are pointing fingers at others, arguing that this bill contains a lot of wasteful spending. Just looking at the plans put up by the Missouri Department of Transportation, it's hard to say that's not the case. Missouri plans to spend $35.5 million on "enhancements." These include bike paths, fixing sidewalks and spending $11.5 million on two new welcome centers. Let me tell you, we're already a welcoming bunch in the Show Me State. Getting out on the bike path can sure be a good way to pedal the recession and obesity away, but wasn't there a day when people would ride bikes even without a path? A couple of cracks in a sidewalk can't hurt too many pedestrians, right?

We keep hearing times are tough. People are losing their jobs-will a new sidewalk fix that? Former office workers are current food bank visitors-will spending $900,000 on rehabilitating an "aircraft parking apron" bring them solace? Foreclosures threaten the lifestyles of a significant portion of Americans-does a multimillion dollar widened highway stop the homeowner exodus?

And don't think this is just happening in Missouri. According to recovery.gov, $799 million has been set aside for "mandatory transportation enhancements." The site defines these as "projects such as sidewalk repairs, bicycle paths and beautification projects. Enhancements do not involve vehicle or mass transit related items." The defenders of seemingly extraneous spending put up a tough argument: How can a project be a bridge to nowhere if at least some citizens will benefit from it? Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tried to point out volcano monitors as wasteful spending in his rebuttal to President Barack Obama's address last week, but the bridge Jindal was picking on actually does go somewhere. Turns out some people in Washington would actually like to know when the volcano in their backyard is about to erupt.

Maybe I'm pointing out the wrong bridge here too. No one wants to be responsible for some kid getting hurt on a defunct bike path. But if this country is hurting so bad, why are we paying for the unnecessary? On both Missouri's and Illinois's Department of Transportation sites, there seems to be an apology to taxpayers: We needed to come up with these projects quickly and this is all we could think up with the money granted to us. The Obama administration promises on recovery.gov that "much of the money is left to states' discretion. And if states don't use it, they lose it.... states have 120 days to assign the funds to specific projects." Seems like haste is creating waste.

Didn't excessive spending get everybody into this mess? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was able to save a sweet Terminator 3 scene with his own money (the one with the crane!), but not even the Governator can take out the new and improved, shape-shifting California deficit. So why not use the federal money to take care of what's actually holding the country back-banks and mortgages?

There's an argument to bail out the banks-if they fail en masse and domestic credit shrinks, businesses all over the country won't be able to get money to fund their operations. There's an argument to help people restructure their mortgages-if homeowners default, they become homeless and the banks suffer more severe losses, shrinking domestic credit further. But the argument for more discretionary spending is just not there. When strapped for money, families shop at Wal-Mart and stop going to restaurants. They become thriftier. Our government should do the same.