WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- As stimulus funds begin flowing from Washington, federal and state leaders have raised questions about the funding's intent, observers said.
Recipients' questions mirror congressional debate about whether the $787 billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act was meant only to boost the economy or whether it could also lay the basis for longer-term reforms, The Washington Post reported Monday.
"There's definitely a lot of confusion in state capitals about what the Recovery Act means," said Chris Whatley of the Council of State Governments. "They're making budget decisions now, and there's still this base level of uncertainty. There's an inherent tension in the differing goals in the bill."
Debates over the law's intent are also occurring in federal agencies. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told his division chiefs to focus on renewable-energy projects, which some departments said seemingly countermands the law's directive that it be used in activities such as reclaiming abandoned mines, maintaining trails and upgrading volcano-monitoring equipment.
Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said Salazar's directives were not in conflict because some of the work laid out in the act could be done with energy goals in mind.
Spending the money is the bottom line -- a different mindset for most number-crunchers, said Scott Pattison, National Association of State Budget Officers director.
"As finance people, we try to be very thoughtful and considered about how it's spent," Pattison told the Post. "Whereas an economist will say, 'Listen, I understand where you're coming from -- but from an economic mindset, it just has to get out there.'"
