Notes &
about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus…Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment.
It’s not quite clear to me the criterion that WSJ is using for what counts as “growth stimulus.” Just because something has a negative ROI (which for both mass transit & renewable energy is debatable when accounting for externalities) doesn’t mean it isn’t providing growth stimulus. Wasn’t it Keynes who said burying money and having people dig it out would count as stimulus? This piece is shockingly ‘ranty’ for a WSJ that’s usually more measured in its analysis.
