Showing signs that they can learn from history, lawmakers are now eying another tax benefit, but only for businesses that create new jobs. That proposal, still in the nascent stages, is designed to address the runaway unemployment numbers that plague many regions, while having the additional advantage of appealing to members of both parties. Indeed, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told The New York Times that there’s “a lot of traction for this kind of idea.”

If the White House will take the lead on this, I’m fairly positive it would be welcomed in a bipartisan fashion.

There’s good reason for Congress to do something. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the economy shed an additional 263,000 in September, knocking the unemployment rate up to 9.8 percent — the highest level since 1983.

The good news here, if Cantor’s comments are indication, is that Republicans, while poised to exploit the jobless numbers to their advantage in next year’s elections, also wouldn’t stand in the way of every proposal addressing the problem.

A sampling of the lyrics:

When Paul goes on The NewsHour,
To talk to old Jim Lehrer
He looks so sad and crestfallen
It’s more than I can bear

I guess Krugman can add “inspirational source for artists” to his list of accomplishments. How many other economists have been the subject of songs and music videos? It seems that Krugman’s consistently negative outlook for the economy — a recent New York Times column entitled “That ’30s Show” warned President Obama that he needs a bigger stimulus plan “or you’ll be facing your own personal 1937″  — strikes a chord with artists. And their audiences.

Some economists can look for all the green shoots they want. People don’t have to buy it. Krugman’s more pessimistic views are the ones catching the imagination.

The president “meant to put the kibosh on the GOP’s favorite method for spreading the wealth around,” Frank writes, noting the astronomical growth of federal spending under former President George W. Bush, paired with a decrease in the number of federal government employees who could make sure those contracts were actually doing what they were supposed to. The failure of Parsons Corp. to finish building more than 20 of the 150 medical clinics it was hired to construct in Iraq is one just one prime example Frank highlights.

But as I wrote in my story posted today, Obama will have his work cut out for him, as he confronts a Congress that’s still ready to cave to government contractors when they lobby hard enough. That’s evidently why the Senate dropped the requirement that the House version of the stimulus bill included, and which House members touted as signifying a new era in government transparency:  the online publication of all those new government contracts.

So what happened to that?  Well, government contractors didn’t like it. And they pushed Congress hard enough until they got it removed.

President Obama is absolutely right that “far too often, [government] spending is plagued by massive cost overruns, outright fraud, and the absence of oversight and accountability.”

Making the actual contracts (and sub-contracts) available for everyone to see — as Congress originally promised — would go a long way to put a stop to that.

As I reported earlier, that protection was left out of an earlier version of the bill, leaving employees of the contractors that are handling billions of dollars of stimulus money vulnerable to being fired for reporting misconduct within their company. An amendment by Senator Claire McCaskill fixed that problem.

The final language is here.

Still, federal employees, despite almost a decade of internal congressional wrangling about the problem, remain wholly unprotected. Although Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Todd Platts (R-Pa.) had proposed a bi-partisan provision on this that the House had adopted, the Senate conferees rejected it, apparently over concerns that providing protections for intelligence employees could somehow end up revealing classified information if they brought retaliation claims.

Tom Devine, legal director for the non-profit Government Accountability Project, is hoping to see federal employee protections in the near future. (There’s a bill on this already pending in the Senate, though as it stands now it still wouldn’t cover intelligence workers or provide jury trials.).

“It is not too late for accountability,” Devine said in a statement released today. “After nearly ten years of hearings and votes, there is no excuse to spend nearly a trillion dollars without safe passage for federal employees who risk their careers to keep it honest.”

Congress could still lock in federal whistleblowers protections before the money starts getting spent in 120 days, he said, adding: “The politicians owe it to the taxpayers.”

Do you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats?

Favor – 44% (+7)
Oppose – 40% (-3)
Not Sure – 15% (-5)

This confirms a Gallup poll that showed stimulus support surging seven points since the president started his PR tour.

I caught up with Brown today after he made an appearance at a sustainable energy research event at the National Press Club. With the Senate on the verge of passing the stimulus package, I asked him what he saw as the biggest holes in the bill that need to be filled.

Sen. Sherrod Brown speaking at the National Press Club

“I would like to see more direct spending on infrastructure, but I think that’s a major component of it,” he responded. “I think there should be fewer tax breaks for businesses. … I think you want to kick the demand side a little bit more, but, you know, we can debate all day what’s better and what’s worse. I like the bill overall, I think it’s very good, I think it takes us exactly in the right direction.”

I then asked him whether he preferred the House bill, which provided less money in the way of tax cuts and more for infrastructure spending, aid to states and green investments.

“It doesn’t matter what I prefer,” he said. “I mean, I’m going to vote for the Senate bill today and tomorrow — cloture today and the bill tomorrow. And then we’ll negotiate and we gotta get 60 votes in the Senate.”

In his speech at the Press Club, he emphasized the need to balance environmental and manufacturing concerns. Ideally, he said, a green agenda would create manufacturing jobs rather than hurting industry.

“We’ll literally grow our economy as we protect our environment,” he pledged.

Brown will be someone to watch after the stimulus passes and environmental concerns come to the fore.

So it’s certainly timely that Congress is moving closer to passing the stimulus bill that’s being promoted as the lifeline that will prevent the recession from lasting longer than it otherwise might. And yet, if some figures crunched by the Congressional Budget Office recently are accurate, the Democrats might want to rethink their strategy.

Testifying before Congress last month, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told lawmakers that the House-passed stimulus proposal would boost the number of jobs by between 800,000 and 2.1 million at the end of 2009, between 1.2 million to 3.6 million at the end of 2010, and between 700,000 and 2.1 million at the end of 2011. (These numbers are relative to end-of-year projections, meaning you can’t just subtract them from the jobless figures of today.)

Those are enormous numbers, even on the low end. But with the economy shedding 600,000 per month with no end in sight, you’d like to think that $825 billion could buy the country more than 800,000 jobs by the end of this year.

This dilemma arises not because experts don’t know how to create jobs via federal spending. Indeed, there’s almost universal agreement that public works projects produce the greatest return on the government’s investment. As University of Maryland economist Peter Morici wrote to reporters earlier this week:

Economists know that real infrastructure improvements–roads, schools, internet upgrades, clean water projects, and a smarter energy grid–return more than a dollar in additional GDP for every federal dollar spent, if substantial amounts of the needed materials and components are not imported.

Why, then, did the House bill include just $90 billion for these bang-for-the-buck infrastructure projects? Even House Infrastructure and Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.), who recommended tens of billions more in ready-to-go public works projects, can’t get a good answer for why that spending was cut out, yet $275 billion in tax cuts remains. Not to mention a number of provisions that seem to satisfy campaign promises, but would do little to stimulate job creation. As The Washington Post wrote in an editorial yesterday:

This is precisely the problem. As credible experts, including some Democrats, have pointed out, much of this “long-term” spending either won’t stimulate the economy now, is of questionable merit, or both. Even potentially meritorious items, such as $2.1 billion for Head Start, or billions more to computerize medical records, do not belong in legislation whose reason for being is to give U.S. economic growth a “jolt,” as Mr. Obama himself has put it. All other policy priorities should pass through the normal budget process, which involves hearings, debate and — crucially — competition with other programs.

Some in the Senate — Democrats and Republicans — are trying to refocus the spending package on its more stimulating elements. We could know as soon as today how well they fare.

A public school in Bogalusa, La. (Flickr: Ken Roberts Photography)

As Congress debates a roughly $825 billion economic stimulus package, many interest groups want to make sure their pet programs get a piece of the action. The education community is no exception.

Various advocates are urging Congress to use the stimulus to fund universal pre-k, expanded after-school programs, education technology, and new teacher compensation packages, among other education initiatives.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Many of these are worthy proposals. And there’s good reason to include education in the stimulus. With state budgets deep in the red and local property taxes, another key source of education funding, plunging with property values, schools across the country are facing serious financial deficits. By plugging holes in state budgets, stimulus spending could reduce the pressure for painful education funding cuts.

Unfortunately, many of the education-related proposals are fundamentally mismatched to the goals of economic stimulus. Stimulus spending is a temporary measure to increase demand by quickly injecting federal dollars into the economy. To the contrary, effective education reforms require sustained, stable investments; schools are unlikely to make meaningful changes if they know funding is temporary. Implementing new education programs effectively takes time, compromising the effect of an economic stimulus.

There is, however, one big exception. New investments in school construction and modernization are a natural fit for the stimulus package. Unlike education programs, which need ongoing funding in order to keep operating, a two-year investment in school construction would produce thousands of school buildings that could be used for decades to come, with no need for continued federal funding. Similarly, investments in “greening” existing school facilities to reduce their energy consumption will produce substantial, ongoing savings that school districts can use to fund pre-k, increased teacher compensation, and other educational programs.

Many states and school districts have construction projects that were already in the works but have been put on hold due to the economic downturn. Federal school construction aid would allow work to resume on those projects, moving cash into the economy quickly. School construction would also create new jobs for construction workers hard-hit by the housing downturn. Because the construction sector is slow right now, schools and districts are likely to secure better deals on projects now than they would if they waited until the economy picks up.

But perhaps the most important reason to invest in school construction is that our students need it. Just as Americans have underinvested in our bridges, roads, and other infrastructure, we’ve also underinvested in our education infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers Infrastructure report card gives our school buildings a grade of D — lower than grades for bridges, rail, or public transit infrastructure. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, it would cost $127 billion just to renovate and repair crumbling or outdated school facilities to good condition. Poor school facilities don’t necessarily prevent students from learning, but, it’s unconscionable that we currently ask students to learn, and teachers to work, in buildings that are overcrowded, inadequately heated and ventilated, poorly maintained, and in some cases literally falling apart. The contrast between schools and other buildings sends our most disadvantaged children a devastating message about the value we place on their education.

States and local governments bear primary responsibility for building and maintaining school facilities but high-poverty and rural communities lack the tax base to support these types of investments. The credit crunch and economic downturn have made things even harder.

By investing in school construction as part of the stimulus, the federal government can put tens of thousands of construction workers back to work, reduce energy consumption in our schools at great savings to local school districts, and improve the quality of educational facilities for a generation of children. That’s a pretty good deal, and one Congress and the president should take advantage of.

Sara Mead is a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation. She writes about early education policy for the blog Early Ed Watch.

The House Ways and Means Committee approved its portion of the $825 billion stimulus package Thursday afternoon, including $275 billion in tax cuts.

While the original bill would allow businesses to recover taxes paid over the last five years based on losses suffered in 2008 and 2009, the Ways and Means panel amended the proposal so that more businesses become eligible for that break, according to the Wall Street Journal:

In a package of amendments to the recovery package unveiled Thursday, House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) proposed a series of changes that would give businesses greater flexibility to claim the credit, ensuring wider participation, congressional aides and corporate lobbyists said. [...]

To pay for the changes, which threatened to drive up the ten-year cost of $16 billion carry-back proposal, the chairman proposed to limit the overall value of the tax benefit. Under his proposal, businesses claiming the tax break would be allowed to carry back 90% of current losses, not 100%, as originally proposed.

The amended bill passed the committee by a vote of 33 to 23, strictly along party lines.

That’s the big challenge of infrastructure and other spending in whatever stimulus spending comes to be. Don’t just build a highway to the exurb. Transform the exurb itself into a walkable, liveable community with a town center and a reason for being. From the NRDC:

We have created a map of the United States featuring 70 locations across the country that are ripe for transformative change. Open the map, zoom in on a location and, without leaving our Web site, you will be shown a Google Maps satellite view of the existing site, given some context about the metro area, and be treated to a brief slide show demonstrating how each can be converted, step-by-step, from sprawl, vacant property or disinvestment into a lively, beautiful neighborhood.

The stimulus package will present a once in a generation opportunity to get things right, when it comes to community development. Groups like the NRDC and other housing and planning advocates are going to have to fight hard to get their ideas heard, and this map is a great start.