THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17. 2009
NEWS
7A
ECONOMY
Obama's stimulus plan pressures states
Officials forced to choose a limited number of projects to receive funds
John Dailey, Sr., left, owner of JRD Contracting, poses with employees Caleb Cooper, center, and Curtis Scarbrough, Sunday in Camden, Ala. Dailey has laid off 12 of his 45 hourly employees, and hopes the economic stimulus package will put some employees back to work on road crews.
BY BETH FOUHY Associated Press
NEW YORK — It may sound like a nice problem for states — figuring out how to spend the billions in infrastructure funding they'll receive as part of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan.
But the task is more complicated than it seems, as state officials try to set priorities while managing competing pressures from communities, watchdog groups and federal regulators over how the money is allocated.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Under the plan Obama is expected to sign into law early this week, states will divide $27 billion to build and repair roads and bridges. That is less than half the $64 billion in projects states told the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials late last year that they had ready to go.
The law also requires that half the money be spent on projects that have been vetted by the federal government and deemed "ready to go" in 120 days, as a way to jolt the economy and create jobs. That means state officials are under pressure to make decisions quickly on which projects to fund and which to bussess
While many states have made their lists of "ready-to-go" infrastructure projects available online for public review, others have resisted, in part because the limited stimulus funding means only a fraction of the projects will receive
money. Watchdog groups say it's likely that state officials fear angering constituents if a project appears on a wish list and then is struck from the final allocation.
"There will be huge internal battles in states about priorities," said Phineas Baxandall of the Public Interest Research Group.
In California, for example, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office rejected a request by The Associated Press for a detailed list of "ready-to-go" projects. The AP sought the information under the California Public Records Act, but the governor's office last week said the documents were internal drafts, adding "disclosure would chill critical communications to and within the Governor's Office, thereby harming the public interest."
The sheer volume of money directed toward state projects has fueled calls for transparency, with journalists, interest groups and others demanding a full accounting of which projects receive the funding, which are rejected, and why.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick addressed that sentiment last week when he named a local real estate developer to oversee bidding for the stimulus money. Patrick also set up a new Web site with information on every project that receives the money.
"The task before us now is to identify the projects that will do the most to get people back to work."
"I don't want to send a mistaken impression there are pet projects,"
M. JODI RELL Connecticut governor
Patrick said.
the governor appeared with the state's attorney general, Martha Coakley, who also will help track the stimulus funds.
"An ounce of prevention in handling the money is worth a bound of
grand jury investigations and civil litigation down the road," Coakley said.
Mindful of the accelerated time table they face, states are moving
quickly to develop mechanisms for identifying priority projects and disbursing funding for them.
Some have created oversight commissions while others are leaving decisions to state transit officials. Some are required by law to involve state legislators, while legislators in states that don't require their participation are pressing to have input.
Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, has retained a former U.S. diplomat as a temporary, unpaid "infrastructure czar" But the Republican-controlled Senate, concerned that Strickland could try to push stimulus funding through the state's Controlling Board instead of through the legislature, has drawn up a separate "spending blueprint" for the federal
stimulus money.
Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, a Republican, has hired two former state finance officials to oversee the stimulus money. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, tapped a former attorney general to manage the funds, while Wisconsin Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle established a state Office of Recovery and Reinvention led by the president of a local electric utility and a vice chancellor of the University of Wisconsin.
In Virginia, Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, is taking a grass-roots approach, setting up a Web site seeking input from residents, local governments and community groups as to how the money should be spent. Nearly 600 suggestions poured in on the first day alone,
In Colorado, 11 transportation commissioners will determine which projects to fund, in part based on recommendations from local governments and city planners around the state. No vote of the legislature is needed to spend the money.
Legislative input also is not required in Maine, but state lawmakers have pressed for involvement and Democratic Gov. John Baldacci says he will seek their guidance. He plans to present a plan for spending the stimulus so that legislative leaders can review it.
Montana's constitution requires that the state legislature appropriate all spending. Lawmakers there are trying to determine whether
to go through the normal appropriations process or accelerate it in some way.
The state's governor, Democrat Brian Schweitzer, told the AP that lawmakers are likely to make changes to the $3 billion list of projects the state has identified as eligible for the stimulus money.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut, a Republican, created a working group of municipal officials, business leaders, legislators and state agencies to determine the final list of projects.
"The task before us now," Rell said, "is to identify the projects that will do the most to get people back to work, get our economy moving again and position us for success when the national business climate improves."
HEALTH
Cookbooks increasing calories
BY J.M. HIRSCH Associated Press
CONCORD, N.H. — It's not just fast food restaurants that have Supersized the way Americans eat — cookbooks share the blame.
So-called portion distortion, the trend of eating larger and larger servings, is as much a problem with recipes as it is restaurants, and has been going on even longer, a study published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine found.
The study, which looked at how classic recipes have changed during the past 70 years, found a nearly 40 percent increase in calories per serving for nearly every recipe reviewed, or about an extra 77 calories.
"So much finger pointing is going on at away-from-home dining it really takes the focus off where we could probably have the most
immediate influence," said Cornell University marketing professor Brian Wansink, who directed the study.
The study identified the trend in numerous cookbooks, but it focused on American kitchen icon "Joy of Cooking," first published during the '30s and regularly updated with new editions since then, most recently in 2006.
Those editions gave researchers a continuity of recipes from which to draw their data, Wansink says.
Of the 18 recipes published in all seven editions, 17 increased in calories per serving. That can be attributed partly to a jump in total calories per recipe (about 567 calories), but also to larger portion sizes.
Only the chili con carne recipe remained unchanged through the years. The chicken gumbo, however, went from making 14 servings at 228 calories each in
the 1936 edition, to making 10 servings at 576 calories each in the 2006 version.
Most excess calories in the American diet still come from food eaten outside the home, said Marlon Nestle, professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University. But she said the study was yet another illustration of how accustomed people were to eating ever increasing quantities of food.
And changes in "Joy of Cooking" have been going on for a while. Increases in overall calories per recipe have been gradual, but portion sizes tended to jump, first during the '40s, again during the '60s, and with the largest jump in the 2006 edition.
The first significant signs of restaurant portion inflation didn't show up until the late '70s, Wansink said.