Federal Stimulus Is Over-Stimulating Big-Shot Lawmakers' Districts
USA Today reports that Army Corps of Engineers federal stimulus construction projects are mysteriously ending up in the districts of important lawmakers.
The newspaper's analysis:
President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress say the $787 billion stimulus package didn't contain any money for projects requested by members of Congress. However, the stimulus law directs the corps to spend its extra funding on current projects — which were all selected by Congress in past spending bills.
The states getting the most money — California, Mississippi, Illinois, Texas and Florida — all have lawmakers serving on the appropriations committees. The seven states getting no corps stimulus funding include Michigan, which has the nation's highest unemployment rate but no members on the energy and water spending panels in either chamber.
"This is a good example of the problem of spending money where a member of Congress wants to spend it vs. where it's really needed," says Tom Schatz of the non-partisan budget watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste. The spending pattern reflects the priorities of appropriations committee members, not economic needs, he said.
Lawmakers with control over the corps' budget say they didn't tell the corps how to spend its stimulus money.
Well, that settles it. Nothing to analyze or second-guess here. Just honest, non self-serving politicians and a slew of happy coincidences. Oink oink.
Funds going to districts of key lawmakers [USA Today]
(Photo: stirwise)
Post a comment
Comments:
yaaaay, Michigan!
No big deal, it's not like we didn't just have any natural disasters around here or anything in need of funds like this...
You expected something different from this irresponsible spending porkfest?
All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.
I agree this isn't the way things should be and there should be a more "need-based" approach to distributing this money but it is only "pork" if your community is not getting the money, otherwise it is "much needed funding".
@jscott73: Yeah, this. The way the article is written, it sounds like it's anti-pork. But the actual argument is just against a very specific set of supposedly pork projects.
Honestly, if you look around, you might be surprised just how many daily experiences you probably have with government funded projects that were simple pork spending to someone else, from the parks and attractions you visit to the roads you drive.
Let me be the first:
In other news, water wet, sky blue.
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!??????? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! (faints)
@jscott73: Don't they -- or didn't they used to -- have an impartial panel that deliberates on military base closings and is supposed to make the decisions based on military need and not political considerations? That would be a very helpful thing for pork in general.
In the alternative, I think they should just assign an equal share to each rep and senator and let them go pork what they want to pork. Then we can spend way less time in Congress fussing with people's pork projects while still getting (at least some of) the stuff funded. (Because, as noted, "pork" is a pretty subjective term.)
"Important lawmakers" == successful lawmakers.
Successful lawmaker == a lawmaker who satisfies his constituents
A lawmaker satisfying his constituents == one who brings Washington money home to the constituents, either in the form of tax-funded projects or tax cuts.
I'm afraid that's the way the system works, USA Today.
I could die of not surprise!
I'm far too impressed by the picture of the pig train.
@wagenejm: Color me surprised. This is why certain elements were strongly against the bailouts. They were pure pork. $800,000,000,000 dollars of pork.
If you need a job, you know which states to go to!
They labeled rebuilding a taxiway at the nearby Hanscom airport as "pork" because they have corporate jet traffic. It does, but it is also one of the busiest light-GA airports in the country.
This is why this whole stimulous idea was a bust: it takes too long for government to get things done, it never spends money in the right place, and the government doesn't have the money to begin with.
It would have been better for the government to have just provided Tax-witholding rebates. A whole lot cheaper in the long run and faster.
Mississippi? Florida? Alaska? Texas? Texas?! (haven't they seceded yet?)
But. But. But I thought, after all the hootanannying they did (every bit as heroically as the Iranians staring down tyranny, donchyaknow), that they were going to turn down all that filthy stimulus money.
What happened? What happened?!
Who was just elected on a platform of "change" and "government transparency"? Didn't we have someone who promised that?
In fact, one could argue that was his whole platform!
This article presents a laughably simplistic analysis of the spending going on. Show me how the spending was distributed in terms of construction-ready projects, then we'll talk.
Hooray for Michigan! It's a place that's paying for my education, then I plan on bailing to a state, or a country, that actually has people running it who know what the sproink they're doing.
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Hahaha, I love you... just not in the same way Mr. McGee does.
In all fairness, those states do have very large populations (save Mississippi).
Are you really that surprised? The stimulus was just a payback to those that got them elected in the first place and an excuse to get more funds for pet projects. Even Acorn is getting a cut. Maybe next time (if we survive to have a next time) America will vote for competence instead of celebrity.
For those that voted the current regime in, remember this moment if you are still around when your children are adults living on the streets because you made their taxes so high they cannot afford the basic cost of living. Obama cannot hand them everything they need if it is not there to hand.
Of course. This could not have been more obvious. Big Government smiles for the camera and releases news bulletins about their legislation, but in the back rooms, they still put the dollars where it meets their own agendas.