Comments on: Democrats Earmark Ban Didn’t Last Long

By: JoetheVeep

JoetheVeep — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:37:54 +0000

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.

By: buzzricksons

buzzricksons — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:33:42 +0000

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.

By: suey

suey — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:35:39 +0000

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.

By: ErinScott

ErinScott — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:19:24 +0000

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.

By: buzzricksons

buzzricksons — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:57:07 +0000

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)

By: Oneon1isto

Oneon1isto — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:47:48 +0000

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.

By: suey

suey — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:32:53 +0000

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.

By: suey

suey — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:52:54 +0000

Why is it a scoop, all this is in the published bill

By: Oneon1isto

Oneon1isto — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:51:16 +0000

If they put it out the stimulus’ API, you’re golden.

By: Oneon1isto

Oneon1isto — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:49:53 +0000

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.