How Big is the Mortgage Problem?

How big is the bad or “toxic” mortgage and loan problem in the US? Nouriel Roubini says the total losses on US mortgages and loans will be 3.6 Trillion, while the IMF has a lower estimate at 2.2 Trillion. Is there an easy way to gauge the size of this problem and check the veracity of these estimates?

Total US mortgage debt outstanding, including residential, commercial, and farm properties, stood at $14.7 Trillion dollars in December 2008. Of this, $4.9 Trillion in residential mortgage debt is guaranteed by the federal government through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae, and does not expose holders of this debt to any risk of loss.

During the depths of the Great Depression, roughly half of all mortgages on homes in major cities were in default. Interestingly, home prices only fell by 20% during the same period, so that even during the Depression, banks could expect to eventually recover 80% of the value of their defaulted loans – and this is assuming 100% financing!

Housing prices are falling more sharply in the current downturn, with Economy.com predicting a peak-to-trough decline of 36%. Mortgage default rates so far have been much lower than the Great Depression, and total defaults across all mortgages are unlikely to exceed 20% during this recession. Assuming a hefty 20% default rate, and an extraordinary 50% drop in home values, banks would still lose only 10% of total loan principal. This would amount to a worst-case $1 Trillion loss in US mortgage lending. According the Federal Reserve, consumer and commercial loans together total another $4 Trillion in principal outstanding. If these loans default at a high rate of 25%, another $1 Trillion in losses would be incurred, for a total of $2 Trillion in US loan losses.

These simple calculations take into account the extraordinary default rates and real estate price drops occurring today, and yet the $2 Trillion in projected losses and is far lower than some economists’ estimates. Perhaps the problem is more tractable than suggested; while $2T is a large sum, it’s much more manageable than the $3-4T predicted by pessimists!

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

How much energy do we need?

energyvshumandevelopment

Energy usage vs UN Human Development Index, 1997

How much energy do we need? In traditional economics, this question is meaningless, as humanity simply consumes the amount of energy demanded at the market-clearing price. But in a resource-constrained world, this question becomes pertinent. Can the world’s energy supplies power a future in which all of mankind uses the same amount of energy as the average American? What level of energy usage is possible, and as fossil fuel sources run short, what kind of renewable energy investment will be required? Let’s examine some scenarios:

Scenario 1: The World at American Standards

The United States consumes 100 quadrillion btu of energy annually. If the world’s population stabilizes around 9 billion, bringing the entire world up to US energy consumption would require 6000 quadrillion btu per year. This is more than twelve times current energy production, a figure that even optimistic forecasters doubt possible. If solar panels cost 50 cents per watt installed (90% cheaper than today and cheaper than coal), an investment of $500 Trillion would be required to provide this amount of energy.

Scenario 2: The World at European Standards

The graph above shows that the US could cut per capita energy consumption by 70% without a significant drop in quality of life. Achieving this standard worldwide would require total energy production of 1800 quadrillion btu per year, still more than triple today’s capabilities. An investment of $150 Trillion would provide enough solar energy to power the world at these standards, a number over double current world GDP.

Scenario 3: Current Energy Usage per Capita

The scenarios above assume that the developing world eventually reaches parity with the industrialized world. Assume instead that current energy usage is maintained on a per capita basis, with the world’s population stabilizing at 9 billion. The world would consume 700 quads of energy per year. This level of energy usage would require $60 Trillion in investment, which might be achievable over time.

Conclusion

Unless energy prices drop by 99 percent via nuclear fusion, the world’s economy is likely to be energy-constrained in the future. It’s highly unlikely that the entire world will ever reach an American or even European level of energy consumption, and even current energy consumption levels will require a massive investment to reach sustainability. The calculations above assume that renewable energy will become significantly cheaper than coal, and yet the cost of replacing the world’s energy infrastructure is enormous. But in the long run, it will be necessary!

Calculations

At 50 cents per Watt installed, what’s the price per kilowatt-hour that I’m assuming? Assume that a 1kW solar system produces 1800 kWh per year, as according to SolarBuzz. Over a 30 year lifetime the system would produce 54000 kWh. If this system costs $500 at 50 cents per watt, then $500 / 54000 kWh = 1 cent per kWh. This is much cheaper than retail delivered electricity generated from coal.

Scenario 1:

1800 kWh * 3413 btu / kWh = 6143400 btu per $500 system

6000 quadrillion btu / 6143400 btu/system = 976 billion 1kW systems needed

At $500 each, that’s $490 Trillion.

Scenario 2: 1800 is 30% of 6000, so 1800 quadrillion btu would require $147 Trillion in investment.

Scenario 3: 700 is 11.6% of 6000, so 700 quadrillion btu would require $57 Trillion in investment.

Posted on by praveenghanta 7

US Debt to exceed GDP by 2015

Here’s a more recent post – the US Debt is now likely to exceed GDP by 2010, next year!

The United States federal debt stands at 10.7 trillion today, or 75% of US GDP. The CBO projects that the US debt will reach 14.6 trillion by 2015, without accounting for the effects of the stimulus package and ongoing bank rescues. These efforts could easily add 1-2 trillion to the total debt, sending the debt over 16 trillion by 2015.

GDP growth may be negative for 2009, and will probably average 2% through 2015 according to CBO projections. Real GDP at the end of 2008 was 14.2 trillion, and is project to rise to 15.8 trillion by 2015, less than the federal debt at that time! Rising inflation may prevent this from happening, but will bring its own set of problems.

Where does a debt load of 100% of GDP put the United States relative to other nations? That would put the US among the top 10 most indebted nations in the world, with peers like Zimbabwe and Italy.

Source Links:

Current US GDP at Bureau of Economic Analysis

US Total Debt at treasurydirect.gov

CBO Budget and Deficit Projections – Click Budget Projections. This xls also includes economic growth estimates.

CIA World Factbook Ranking of Nations by Public Debt

Posted on by praveenghanta 2

Healthcare Bubble

Dot com bubble. Real estate bubble. Commodities bubble. Healthcare bubble? How can the US healthcare system be a bubble when tens of millions are uninsured and more people fall through the cracks daily? The media, public, and politicians alike have been more concerned with the inadequacies of the system than with its rapid growth. US healthcare spending has grown enormously, exceeding the rate of inflation for decades to become the largest sector of the US economy. The United States now spends over 16% of its GDP on healthcare, almost double the average for developed nations.

Perhaps Americans just demand the best and priciest healthcare, with the most modern technology and treatments. Other insurance prices are on a steep rise, including home, accidental and auto insurance. If Americans paid for healthcare themselves, this would simply represent a rational spending choice. But the federal government now incurs 60% of all healthcare spending, meaning that taxpayers, and not individuals, pay for most of our healthcare. Medicare, Medicaid, and other direct government healthcare accounts for 46% of healthcare spending, while tax breaks on healthcare subsidize another 10-15% of healthcare spending [1].

At current growth rates, government healthcare spending will exceed the entire Federal budget by 2050 [2]. Total spending on healthcare will near one-third of GDP by 2030. It’s unlikely that the US can devote 1/3rd of all productive capacity to healthcare without crippling other sectors of the economy and reducing overall economic growth. The healthcare bubble thus dwarfs all previous bubbles in size, since the technology, real estate, and energy sectors are all so much smaller.

How will the bubble pop, and what will its effects be? Since most healthcare spending is federal, the bubble will pop when the government can no longer afford its healthcare outlays. The US has been able to borrow freely by issuing debt for many decades, but this will eventually end once our debt exceeds GDP. With the current downturn, government debt may actually exceed GDP by 2015 [3]. Thus the reckoning may come sooner than many expect.

Will healthcare reform contain costs and deflate the bubble gradually? Most reform plans focus more on increased coverage than on cost control, so they may exacerbate the problem. Eventually the hard choices will have to be made, and they will include some combination of reducing Medicare benefits, cutting provider reimbursements, openly rationing government health care, and limiting the tax break on health insurance. I just hope that some of the hard choices are made before we are collectively up against a fiscal wall.

[1] $200 Billion in taxes are foregone as a result of the employer-based healthcare tax deduction, equivalent to 10% of all healthcare spending. When this subsidy is included the government’s share of healthcare spending rises to 56%. This analysis does not include the exemptions on property taxes and sales taxes that healthcare providers receive; adding these subsidies in would likely drive the government’s share of health care spending over 60%.

[2] The CBO predicts that Medicare and Medicaid will account for 14% of GDP by 2050. This figure doesn’t include healthcare spending through the VA system, SCHIP program, and other federal healthcare programs, which total $100 Billion in spending today. If these programs also grow commensurately, total government spending may near 18% of GDP in 2050, roughly equivalent to total government revenue.

[3] This projection of public debt growth shows that US government debt will exceed gdp by 2050. This only takes into account debt held by the public, however. Gross government debt is already above 65% of GDP, and may grow to 75% by the end of 2010 as a result of the recession and stimulus spending. With deficits of $500B+ per year possible for several year, US total government debt could exceed gdp in less than 10 years.

Posted on by praveenghanta 13

Is Oil and Gasoline Demand Rising Again?

The media is filled with reports that Americans are driving less, and that gasoline demand and oil demand continue to drop. What’s the reality of the situation? Is demand continuing to drop, has it leveled off, or is it rising again? The graphs below tell the story:

Figure 1: US gasoline demand dropped off in 2008. US Gasoline demand is highly cyclical, and figure 2 corrects for this.

2007 vs 2008 Gasoline Consumption

Figure 2: To eliminate seasonality, 2007 demand is subtracted from 2008 demand to measure the difference week by week. This shows that demand crashed in September and October, but has subsequently begun to recover. Low gas prices may be responsible for the demand rebound.

2008 Second Half US Oil Consumption

Figure 3: US oil demand also dropped sharply during September and October, but has since recovered to mid-2008 levels. In addition to rising gasoline consumption, residual fuel oil demand is rising since oil is now price-competitive with natural gas.

Figure 4: The long term EIA graph shows that demand growth has leveled off, and that after a sharp drop in late 2008, demand is recovering.

Gasoline and crude oil demand seem to have recovered from the levels experienced during the heart of the financial market meltdown. Intuitively, gasoline demand should rebound a bit, since gasoline price deflation over the past year makes driving a very inexpensive activity for consumers. With the recession curtailing further oil exploration, we may be in for a price shock when economic growth returns!

Note: All data used in the graphs can be found by clicking on the EIA graphs, which link to the appropriate EIA data pages.

Posted on by praveenghanta 2

Electric vs Gasoline – Which is more cost effective?

Last summer gas prices spiked and the media was awash in stories about the electric car, whether from major automakers or startups. Just a few months later, gasoline is at $1.50 and SUV sales have begun to rise again. Environmental and foreign policy benefits notwithstanding, electric vehicles are perceived to be more expensive than gasoline vehicles. At what gasoline price are electric vehicles more cost effective?

In Theory, Electric Vehicles are More Efficient

Electric motors are very efficient, converting over 90% of electrical power supplied into motion, while gasoline engines manage only 20% efficiency. On a full life cycle basis including power plants and oil wells, electric vehicles manage about 34% efficiency versus only 14% for gasoline vehicles [1]. In theory electric vehicles are much more efficient.

But how does it work in practice? Let’s take a look at two real-world examples, the Tesla electric sports car, and the Hymotion plugin-hybrid modification for the Toyota Prius.

Hymotion Toyota Prius and Tesla Examples

Hymotion is now selling a plugin hybrid modification for the Toyota Prius which enables it to travel roughly 40 miles with minimal gasoline usage. Hymotion states that independent testers have verified the Hymotion-modified Prius capable of receiving a 150mpg EPA city rating.

The Hymotion modification uses 5 Kwh of electricity, worth about 50 cents, to help power it through a 40 mile trip, while using the gas engine about 20% of the time. At $1.50 a gallon the total fuel cost for a 40 mile trip is about 30 cents, resulting in a total trip cost of 80 cents. The average American vehicle gets 20 mpg, so it would use 2 gallons for the trip, or $3.

Tesla provides a good life cycle energy usage comparison between its electric sports car and other automobiles on its website. The Tesla uses 177 watt-hours of energy per mile traveled, which costs 1.7 cents on average. Based on Tesla’s numbers, a 40 mile trip would cost 68 cents in a Tesla versus $3 for gasoline in a typical vehicle.

Even at $1.50 gas or $1 gas, electric and plugin-hybrid vehicles are significantly cheaper to operate than gasoline vehicles. But electric and hybrid vehicles are significantly more expensive than comparable gasoline vehicles today, which motivates the primary question:

At What Gasoline Price are Hybrid or Electric Vehicles Competitive?

For the Hymotion-modified Toyota Prius, the breakeven price of gas is around $3 a gallon. The Hymotion modification for the Toyota Prius costs $10,000, and the Prius itself costs roughly $5000 more than a similar non-hybrid vehicle. At $3 a gallon, a driver that drives 12,000 miles per year would save about $1500 per year, just recouping his initial investment over a 10 year timeframe.

Batteries represent the primary factor in the additional cost of hybrid vehicles, and battery price-performance is improving at a rate of about 8% per year. At this rate, the breakeven price will probably be $2 a gallon in 2013.

Plugin hybrids and electric vehicles provide one additional savings: time. The average driver fills up almost every week, losing a total of 8 hours a year. For busy professionals, 8 hours of time could be worth $500 to $1000 or more, making plugin-hybrids the cost-effective choice today!

Footnotes:

[1] Electrical energy is created by burning fossil fuels in a power plant at 40% efficiency, followed by transmitting it to your house at 93% efficiency, and using it in an electric vehicle at 92% efficiency, providing a total efficiency of around 34% for an electric vehicle. Crude oil refineries operate at 75% efficiency, and gasoline distribution might cause another 6% energy loss. Since internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, total efficiency would be around 14%. Assuming that the natural gas and oil to power our vehicles comes from the same well, we can directly compare these efficiencies, and thus conclude that electric vehicles are significantly more efficient.

Posted on by praveenghanta 31

Career Rankings by ROI and salary

A college education has many rewards, but it is primarily an investment, and its return can be calculated by measuring the increase in salary that it brings. While college has many intangible benefits that are difficult to measure, the NPV and IRR of future income can be used to measure its rate of return. Unfortunately, very few comparisons have been done to rank career paths on these metrics.

In the table below, I build on my previous research by ranking 22 different career paths by return on investment. The careers are ranked by Net Present Value and rate of return (methodology explained at bottom). The career rankings take into account numerous factors for each career, including the length and expense of education, salary potential, and unemployment risk.

Career ROI Rankings:

Career Average Salary NPV After-tax earnings (lifetime) Rate of Return
1. Law $124,230 $186,200 $4,709,000 15%
Attorneys rank high on the list since their education is complete just three years after college, and they can step right into six-figure salaries.
2. Chemical, Petroleum, Nuclear Engineering $85,000 $174,100 $3,271,000 19.3%
Petroleum and Chemical engineers step into starting salaries over 60k, leading to a high return on a 4-year education.
3. Pharmacy $98,960 $173,305 $3,833,000 16.5%
Pharmacists typically must complete a six year program before starting work, but high demand for pharmacists enables them to move directly into $90k per year positions upon graduation.
4. Computer Science $83,160 $170,000 $3,335,000 19%
Computer science grads start work immediately after college with salaries above 50k, giving them a fast payback on their investment, but lifetime earnings potential is lower than in some professional fields.
5. Medicine – Specialist $190,000 $148,000 $5,994,000 12.75%
Doctors have always enjoyed good incomes, but their educational investment is so high that it reduces their educational ROI more than is commonly realized.
6. Accounting $69,500 $144,900 $3,038,000 17.9%
Accountants can start work right after college, and their pay increases considerably once they’ve completed their CPA certification.
7. Stockbroker $90,470 $125,600 $3,194,000 16%
Stockbrokers start with a low salary, but can build up to a comfortable 90k with time and effort.
8. Civil / Mechanical Engineering $75,200 $112,000 $2,860,000 16.0%
Civil and Mechanical engineers tend to lag engineers in other fields in terms of income and career ROI.
9. Medicine – Primary Care $161,500 $108,900 $5,246,000 12.2%
Primary Care doctors have an educational investment almost as high as medical specialists, but do not receive commensurate salaries.
10. Physical Scientist (Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, etc) $78,100 $108,600 $3,177,000 14.7%
Physical scientists have to complete eight years of education before moving into a full time research or academic position.
11. Airline Pilot $148,410 $106,241 $3,279,000 13.75%
Airline pilots must work for years at low paying regional air or charter jobs before making it to a major carrier, but the final payoff is a relatively high salary and reasonable working hours.
12. Nursing (RN) $62,480 $106,170 $2,598,000 16.75%
Nurses can finish training in as little as three years, and earn relatively good salaries right from the start, with job prospects virtually anywhere in the country.
13. Police Officer $50,000 $78,000 $1,748,000 9.6%
Police Officers are well compensated relative to the length of their education, but take risks not associated with most other careers.
14. Biological / Life Scientist $69,175 $71,720 $2,812,000 13.3%
Biological scientists earn lower salaries than their colleagues in physical sciences, but have to undergo the same amount of training.
15. Financial Analyst $81,700 $54,000 $3,042,000 12.20%
While completing an MBA can nearly double a financial analyst’s salary, the high tuition and lost earnings diminish the rate of return.
16. Insurance Underwriter/Appraiser $57,795 $54,000 $2,342,000 13.20%
Insurance underwriters and appraisers enjoy a relatively steady income after college.
17. Architecture $73,650 $50,000 $2,710,000 12.2%
Architects have decent salaries in the long run, but they must first complete a five year Bachelor’s program, and then spend several years as interns before becoming full-fledged architects.
18. Human Resources Specialist $56,740 $25,000 $2,164,000 11.50%
HR Specialists start working quickly, but their salaries don’t rise as significantly as in other careers.
19. Graphic Design $45,340 $18,220 $1,994,000 11.2%
Graphic Designers can start work right after finishing college, but competition for positions is high, keeping salaries down.
20. Psychologists $70,000 $11,000 $2,373,000 10.5%
Psychologists’ long training period and low salary compared to MDs decreases returns significantly.
21. Teaching (K-12) $52,450 -$6,630 $1,930,000 9.6%
Teachers are not particularly well compensated in the US, and since their starting salaries are particularly low, the NPV of an investment in a teaching career is actually negative.
22. English (PhD) $60,000 -$15,250 $2,165,000 9.25%
At the bottom of the rankings are Humanities majors. If an English or Humanities PhD candidate tells you that they didn’t go into it for the money, they’re not lying: this career path has a negative return on investment in income terms.

Annotated spreadsheet with all calculations: HTML | XLS with formulas

Definition of Terms:

NPV: This is the Net Present Value of the student’s investment in education, based on a 10% discount rate. 10% is a common rate of return expected for long-term investments, and it helps provides a fair benchmark of the value of each career path.

IRR: This is the Internal Rate of Return of the educational investment. IRR tends to favor shorter time horizons, so shorter educational paths like engineering are rewarded when measured via IRR.

Lifetime Earnings: This is a simple sum of the lifetime after-tax earnings of each career path from age 18 through age 65.

Methodology:

All salary data was taken from the BLS May 2007 Occupation Employment and Wages Estimates. The BLS data measures only base salaries, and does not include bonuses, profit-sharing, or other similar forms of compensation in its estimates. College was assumed to cost $20,000 per year (this sounds low, but is an average for public and private colleges, after all scholarships, grants, and student work are taken into account). Professional school costs, and graduate and resident stipend data were sourced variously, and are noted in the spreadsheet. Inflation at 2% and progressive taxation are also accounted for in the calculations.

The rate of return for each field was calculated by determining the IRR for each field, taking into account the cost of college and measuring total after-tax gains from age 22 to age 65. The NPV of each career path was also calculated with a discount rate of 10%. Finally, lifetime after-tax earnings were calculated as a simple sum to provide another measure of earnings potential.

Posted on by praveenghanta 21

Stimulus Plan Ideas

I’ve been thinking about President-elect Obama’s proposed stimulus plan lately, as it represents one of the larger policy decisions of the coming year. Most economists agree government stimulus that some form of is necessary to prevent a deflationary economic environment, and to improve economic sentiment. But what criteria should we use to judge fiscal stimulus spending, and are there any good ideas out there that haven’t been considered?

Stimulus Plan Criteria:

1. Speed: Any stimulus spending needs to occur quickly in order to boost the economy. Projects which don’t hit the ground til 2010 don’t meet this criteria.

2. Spent, Not Saved: Ideally, 100% of any stimulus funds should be spent on consumption of goods and services to kick-start the economy. Tax rebate checks, particularly to the wealthy, perform poorly in this regard because a larger percentage of the funds will be saved.

3. Return on Investment: Projects with a measurable return on investment, whether in economic growth or otherwise, are preferable to spending that has no longer term benefit.

With these criteria in mind, here are some fresh ideas that I think deserve consideration:

1. Convert school buses and bus fleets to CNG. This would decrease diesel emissions near children, and also reduce US dependence on foreign oil, while providing an immediate boost to the auto manufacturing sector. Particulate pollution kills tens of thousands of people annually – why not spend to improve public health and reduce oil dependence at the same time? $25 Billion would enable the conversion of half the nation’s school bus fleet.

2. 100% tax credits for energy efficiency in homes and small businesses. Instead of handing out tax rebate checks, which aren’t spent in full, why not pay homeowners and businesses to improve energy efficiency? President-elect Obama has made a similar proposal regarding federal buildings, but tax credits would lead to faster spending since consumer and small businesses can move more quickly. $50 Billion would retrofit 50 million of America’s single family homes with energy saving modifications.

3. Increase funding for basic science research. The great economic booms of the 80’s and 90’s were driven by technological advances like the personal computer, the internet, and pharmaceutical technology, and these technologies had their early beginnings in basic research. Increasing basic research and grant expenditure at the NSF, NIH, DARPA, and other agencies would employ thousands of new college graduates and researchers while accelerating the path to future technological breakthroughs. Doubling the NSF and DARPA budgets would cost $10 Billion, while another $5 Billion would add to NIH’s budget.

Funding these ideas in total would cost $90 Billion. While federal spending at this level would crowd at private investment in normal circumstances, today’s circumstances have drastically reduced private investment across the board. If the Federal government is planning to spend close to a trillion dollars on stimulus, shouldn’t we fund high return projects like these?

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

What’s the Real Federal Deficit?

The federal deficit for the past ten weeks alone is now 650 Billion dollars, in addition to a fiscal 2008 deficit of $1 Trillion.

Since the US government fiscal year ended on 9/30/08, the federal debt has increased from $10,024 Billion to $10,656 Billion (as of 12/9/08).* The federal debt increased by $1 Trillion over the 12 months ending 9/30/08.

As I’ve previously noted, measuring the Federal deficit by looking at growth in the Federal debt provides a clearer picture of budget shortfalls than the officially announced numbers, which hide significant expenditures, and paint too rosy a picture.

A large part of the recent increase in the debt can be tied to the Treasury Department’s various stabilization and bailout initiatives, including the TARP and other programs. President-elect Obama plans to add a significant dose of fiscal stimulus to the Treasury and Federal Reserve efforts, driving the deficit up by another 500 Billion to one trillion in the next year. While current circumstances do call for aggressive action, the government should take care not to exacerbate our economic problems by trying to roll the clock back to 2006. Lowering mortgage rates for new home purchases, for instance, provides an incentive to create and buy more of a product that is already in a state of massive over-supply.

When the bad times end, we’ll have to start paying these debts back. Let’s hope President-elect Obama and his team spend their stimulus money on projects with tangible return on investment, and not just on make-work programs.

 

* A significant portion of the increase in deficit spending is being used to buy financial institution shares and various commercial debt instruments, which might be thought of as investments. Nonetheless, the federal debt grows when we borrow, even if we use the money to buy investments. This holds true for personal balance sheets, corporate balance sheets, and for the federal government as well. The federal government has a particularly poor record of decreasing the size of its debt, so I believe it’s fair to regard any excess borrowing as a deficit.

Posted on by praveenghanta 4

Level the Playing Field for Mass Transit

President-elect Barack Obama announced a massive public works program this weekend to rebuild America’s infrastructure, with investments in transportation, energy efficiency, and schools planned.

Obama could further his fiscal stimulus and infrastructure program by leveling the playing field between road and mass transit investments. When the Interstate highway system was created, the federal government provided 90% of the financing, requiring states to pitch in the remaining 10%. In contrast, most transit projects in the US received little or no federal funding until the 70’s, and currently receive 60-80% in federal financing. In addition, transit projects have to meet steep qualification requirements before being funded, while states are provided lump sum funding for road projects which can be used with much greater discretion.

Why not level the playing field by allowing states to use federal transportation funding as they see fit, without explicitly allocating it for roads or mass transit? States with large urban areas could then focus on large-scale transit projects, while rural states could focus on traditional road construction. This blog has consistently advocated against subsidies of all kinds, but since most major transportation projects are funded via the DOT, it makes sense to enable states to spend the money according to their needs.

In the current economic environment, fiscal stimulus is advisable, and fully funding mass transit projects will help advance the new administration’s energy policy as well. Providing equal funding for both mass transit and roads should be an easy win for the Obama administration, and I hope that the new President takes this step.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0