While moderates in the U.S. Senate have modified the proposed stimulus package to $780 billion, that package now needs to be negotiated with the House of Representatives. Much of the debate has been about how much should be in spending (President Barack Obama was right when he flippantly defined “stimulus” as spending, at a Democratic congressional gathering Thursday night) versus tax cuts. Yet a larger question seems to have been missed in much of the debate over the seesawing cost of the package - what is the goal of the spending?

Many proponents on the spending side suggest that it is not only to put more people back to work (Friday's unemployment numbers, the largest one month job loss since 1974, were a trigger to get a deal) but to also do some long-term good for the nation. The giant infusion of spending could create public works projects that could result in long-term improvements. While it would be hoped that both go hand in hand, that is not likely going to be the case.

The federal government is going to require “shovel ready” projects for funding, those that can be started within 90 to 120 days, but this is a requirement that should be examined. To have this type of turnaround time, once an award is made, should raise all types of red flags as to how valid the projects are. For example, are these projects that states and localities couldn't justify to local taxpayers prior to the thought that cash would flow from Washington?

There has been a feeling in Albany that negotiations for the budget for the next fiscal year, which starts in less than two months, can't really start until it is known what is in the package from Washington. That should raise concerns that Albany sees this as a bailout for the state's budget crisis and a way to get away from making tough choices.

Just as important - can the amount of money in question be better used, not for piecemeal programs (some upstate leaders want the funds to go to everything from broadband upgrades and energy independence programs to more parochial ideas such as fixing sewer systems, which municipalities have long ignored and traffic interchanges, such as the one at Taft Road in Syracuse), but larger public works programs that could leverage other funds.

The problem with the latter is that the larger projects don't easily roll out in the short term, creating jobs immediately. The great infrastructure programs that have had lasting impact on the nation from the 1811 National Road and 1817 Erie Canal to 1862 Transcontinental Railroad and 1956 Eisenhower Interstate Highway System took years to start, if not decades to finish - a piece of history that seems to be missing from the current debate.

Cosentino is a former mayor of Auburn and can be contacted at cozguytho@aol.com