RSS Feed MenuIt took less than a month for congressional Democrats to jettison President Obama’s call for an earmark moratorium.
With $819 billion in new spending roaring out of Washington, anonymous Democratic legislators could not resist slipping in a few pet projects of their own while writing the legislation.
As the stimulus package arrives in the Senate, it comes decorated with some eyebrow-raising items.
The Economic Development Assistance Program gets $150 million. That sounds reasonable – most agree the country could use a little economic development right now – until it’s remembered that this is the organization that members of Congress have used in the past to fund the B.B. King Museum in Indianola, Mississippi, and Astoria, Oregon’s Seafood Consumer Center.
Does this mean Congress may at last fund Las Vegas’ request for the mob museum?
Earlier in the week, House Democrats theatrically removed family planning funds from the stimulus package. But a provision in the Senate package suggests the money may soon be added back.
The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority could receive a federal payment of $125 million.
Could the $62 million for “necessary infrastructure upgrades associated with the large-scale redeployment of U.S. military forces to Guam” indicate where the withdrawal of troops in Iraq could be headed?
The State Department’s Capital Investment Fund, for “immediate information technology upgrades”, would receive $524 million to create just 388 jobs in the United States, which equals $1.35 million per job.
According to documents acquired by NewMajority, the bill also offers:
– $190 million for “government-wide supercomputers”
– $248 million for DHS headquarters consolidation
– $30 million for abandoned-mine cleanup
– $3.5 billion for military construction
– $100 million for lead paint abatement
– $9 billion in the Federal Buildings Fund
– $240 million for alteration of Bridges
$819 billion – if that really is the ultimate total – is a staggering amount of money. A money bill so huge is the perfect place to stash a few giveaways. As things are going, the taxpayers will only learn what they have bought after the money has been spent.
suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 5:29 am
I cant see where the pork is in all of these apart from possibly the ECDA program. Take the DC water and sewer funding for instance. Last month a huge water pipe burst in DC. Billions of gallons of water created an instant river down a main road. Cars were being washed away and it was a miracle no one was killed. It will take a lot of money to clean up the mess. So do you want more of that? Now the Bridge funding. Do you want more bridges to collapse like the Minneapolis bridge? No pork there unless Alaska gets it’s bridge to nowhere. Military construction how is that pork? At least be honest in your reporting. This bill is heading to the Senate for revision any pork hopefully will be taken out at that stage. Your last sentence is a lie and either shows you have no idea what you are writing or are being disenguous. The Obama administration has said that the all spending in the plan will be shown online. They are setting up a website to list them all line by line. So you have written a headline and made up a story to fit the headline. Bad journalism. If you have real examples of Pork expose them and shame the administration, until then you need to think a little deeper.
AMeek // Jan 30, 2009 at 5:49 am
Suey, you’re finally adding a little substance to your posts (so I won’t call this a drive-by). But at least recognize the irony of a bill called “Stimulus” that doesn’t do much to actually stimulate the economy. Stimulate, by congressional and administration definitions must be direct and expeditious. The only thing speedy about this bill is it’s attempted passage. If Congress and the former President had taken more time with the financial bailout bill, maybe that “quick fix” might have had more chance of actually accomplishing what was intended. Instead, we hear reports that another trillion dollars may be needed to address the “bad” assets still in banks. I find it humorous that the President expressed anger at the lack of responsibility and restraint from Wall Street and their bonuses (I’m not supporting them either) but at the same time is encouraging massive “program” spending. While it’s possible to justify almost anything passed by Congress, the pork label is fitting when most of the spending here won’t take place anytime soon.
suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:17 am
AMeek. Is the bill perfect no, will it improve I hope so. I think the consensus here in what I find to be a pretty reality based community is that no one has the answer to the problem. We have run out of levers to pull and we need to try to stimulate the economy to prevent huge job losses and the pain that will cause. Bush tried tax cuts only and it did not work. This bill will end up with 4 aspects. Tax cuts for the middle class, Tax cuts and investment incentives for small business, spending on infrastructure and things like education to prevent laying off teachers, On police to prevent laying off cops, and help to the states so that your property tax does not balloon to crazy levels. If you have any helpful suggestions how to save the economy any differently at this stage please share it.
gblittle // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:21 am
Suey, the House bill was loaded with pork – plain and simple. Even Senate leaders said the the bill would require major changes. The bridge in Minneapolis fell not because of age (there was some disrepair) but a design flaw. At what point do cities and states take responsibilty for infrastructure? Should local water mains be built/maintained by the Federal government? The question everyone (democrat and republican) should be asking regarding infrastructure is this. What happened to all the tax monies (gas tax, and state and local taxes) that was suppose to build and maintain our infrastructure? Why should tax payers in Georgia fix a school in Michigan? Why should tax payers in New York repair roads in Alabama? Taxes are necessary, but the $1 in taxes, by the time is gets back to the project its not $1 anymore. The Federal government has created and the states and local governments expect an all you can eat “federal tax dollars” buffet. I frankly tired of it and BOTH parties and the federal government need to put an end to it.
suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:22 am
AMeek you say spending of any kind is pork if it does not act quickly. How so? Does today’s good solid investment in infrastructure suddenly become Pork later? does it have a sell by date? are we not also in this thing for the longer term. You can’t just throw a switch on these things. Any project takes time to organise and execute. I don’t think things will turn around for at least 2 years whatever you do.
suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:25 am
gblittle. I agree about local taxation for infrastructure. However that bird has flown. The states are broke and getting worse. They are unable to run a deficit. So where is the money to come from if not the central government. California is talking I understand to be contemplating laying off 50% of it’s teachers.
gblittle // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:55 am
The states are broke because they spend too much. That’s their problem, not the Federal governments. As far as CA is concerned, as a former resident, they have been broke for years — a problem of government’s excessive spending. Their problems go much deeper.
suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:05 am
So what do you do. Just sit there and twiddle your thumbs white alll breaks loose? Or just allow the states to jack up taxation locally to absurd levels?
sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:36 am
In McCain’s 2008 campaign, ranting about earmarks didn’t help him one bit with anybody but the bedrock faithful Republicans. Leaving aside military construction (which might have ended up in the defense budget if it wasn’t placed in the stimulus bill), the total amount of money being spent on the earmarks identified by Ms. Bagley is about $2 billion. We shouldn’t be obsessed with the $2 billion in earmarks. We should be concerned about whether the $800 billion package will do the job, or if there are better alternatives.
sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:41 am
gblittle: If it had been up to you, would you have spent the $500 billion of Federal money to build the Interstate Highway System? Why or why not?
Oneon1isto // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:49 am
I find the $30 mil for abandoned-mine cleanup intriguing. But methinks we might want to brush up on the definition of pork before continuing posts like this. Still, Moira, you or NM seem to have some sort of scoop here. If that’s true, be hawkish for us and keep your eyes out for a more comprehensive listing of the stimulus so when it is rolled out we can pick that puppy apart.
Oneon1isto // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:51 am
If they put it out the stimulus’ API, you’re golden.
suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:52 am
Why is it a scoop, all this is in the published bill
suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:32 am
Ok please correct me if I am wrong (I’m sure you will
. I understand Pork (earmark) to be spending on projects added to a bill by members of congress to advance their own state based adgenda usually with an eye to payback for favors given. Is that right? This bill has not gone as far as to attract pork as described above so how can it be pork in the usually accepted sense. are there areas of unwise spending in the bill. Sure but to describe them as traditional pork maybe not.
Oneon1isto // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:47 am
Suey: It’s kind of moot, because at the end of the day infrastructure spending on a certain project within a certain state is the same whether or not it originates as part of an overall infrastructure spending plan or whether it’s some House member’s pet project to garner favor. And especially with this bill it will be tough to figure out which is which, because it’s all going to look like infrastructure spending.
I think the salient point to be made isn’t on any single project, but rather how effective any given project will be at bringing jobs. Which Moira has sort of hinted at when she starts doing the napkin math concerning how much each job costs to create. It feels weak though, because everyone agrees we have to do something. Followup arguments should be made on the efficacy of such stimulus, rather than whether or not it is or isn’t pork.
buzzricksons // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:57 am
So I put up a post commenting that DC is within the purview of the federal government, so its issues should be funded in these federal bills, and it gets removed. Between these odd random removals of posts and the childishly silly language filter being used on this site’s comments threads, I’m beginning to wonder who’s running this clown show anyway? Are we not adults here, or is this some kind of nod to some language-shy const-ituency? (hyphenated to avoid language filter)
ErinScott // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The amount of money in this bill is truly staggering. I have no idea how you can spend this amount of cash without a significant amount of it being wasted. The only way I can see to make infrastructure projects somewhat efficient as an immediate stimulus is to provide funds for states to ensure that existing projects aren’t cancelled.
I wish that a few Republicans had voted for the package. I think that the discussion with congressional Republicans led to some beneficial changes being made (more tax cuts, contraceptives). I’m afraid that Democrats will play stupid and, in the absence of Republican support in the house, change the bill to something worse. A couple of token Republican votes might have been a good idea.
suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I truly wish they had split this bill into 3 lumps. (1) Shovel ready infrastructure that will create jobs and leave a lasting useful in the long term benefit. (2) Longer term spending on projects like wind power and oil dependency reduction. (3) Help to the States for medicare and help with Paying salaries for teachers etc. A tax reduction bill would be another thing altogether and should be a root and branch overhaul of the tax system to make it equitable and fair. To lump the whole thing into a huge bill was always going to cause problems.
buzzricksons // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:33 pm
None of them read the bill. You can’t read 700 pages in 1 week and expect to understand it. This is some idiotic stunt the Congress is in the midst of trying to pull here. They’re rushing because they’re afraid voters will begin to pay attention to the details. Bravo to the GOP caucus in the House for “making [the Dems] famous” with this one.
JoetheVeep // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Redeploying to Guam? Are we set to take out those Phillipine terrorists? That’s an odd one. I kind of like the mob museum idea, but surely the private sector could fund it. The mob, perhaps. Suey, I agree with your thoughts about splitting the bill into sections. Calling this thing a stimulus bill is flatly deceptive. And surely a spending bill of such enormity could do with a little more deliberation and scrutiny.