WWTBAM Bored

- of what they consider wasteful spending in the stimulus package. I have to say I agree with most of these, although not all of them...
• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. WTF
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. seriously?
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). necessary right now??
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
pretty sure I didn't spend over half the price of my house on furniture for said house
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.how 'bout us state employees??
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
costly condoms
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
horseshit
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.now THIS, i understand
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
make everyone who gets counted pay one dollar
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." riiiight
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. huh?
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
ain't gonna happen. The greening, I mean
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. they don't make that stuff anymore, right?
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. how about some accountability training for our politicos?
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. who thinks of this crap?

$88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). necessary right now??

You better believe it.

Not necessarily wasteful, but definitely not belonging in a spending package meant to stimulate the economy. Leave the pork and pet projects where they belong, buried in the massive bills passed in the dead of night just before a Congressional vacation period.

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
pretty sure I didn't spend over half the price of my house on furniture for said house

Mebbe not, but my home insurance has that amount (half the house value, not $248 million) in coverage for the contents. It's prolly intended to cover clothing and other necessities as well, but that's the total.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

Only if they're buying the U.S. car companies' versions. The Japanese government can buy theirs from Toyota and Honda.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. huh?

I don't agree with the money being voted on in this bill, but yes, there are old canals in urban areas, formerly used for mills and other water-powered enterprises from the 19th century. I live right near one in Lowell MA. It's a big and expensive problem for the city to keep it clean and maintain the flow of the river through it, which can't be handled entirely through its regular bed without flooding issues.

"paid volunteers"

A typical governmental oxymoron.

I am hoping the senate does their job and cuts all the crap out and passes something that is intended to be a stimulus package (not a give my constituents what they want package).

peacock2121 wrote:I am hoping the senate does their job and cuts all the crap out and passes something that is intended to be a stimulus package (not a give my constituents what they want package).

It's not even that. It's more like the "Democratic Party Wish Fulfillment" package.

I'm an unaffiliated voter and tend more Democrat than Republican, but this is just over the top. Hey guys and gals, you want Republican support for this bill? Take every penny for the above-listed items and either change them to some version of a tax cut or else ditch them entirely.

gsabc wrote:Not necessarily wasteful, but definitely not belonging in a spending package meant to stimulate the economy. Leave the pork and pet projects where they belong, buried in the massive bills passed in the dead of night just before a Congressional vacation period.

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
pretty sure I didn't spend over half the price of my house on furniture for said house

Mebbe not, but my home insurance has that amount (half the house value, not $248 million) in coverage for the contents. It's prolly intended to cover clothing and other necessities as well, but that's the total.

If you want to stimulate the economy, public works projects are the way to go and frontloading things to do now that sooner rather than later makes sense. Plus, overpaying to a certain extent in order to keep the money here in the United States rather than obtaining cheaper materials overseas makes some sense as well.

But boondoggles that do not create jobs directly or indirectly should not be in the package.

Here is a site that will let you find out what is proposed for your state or town.

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state

This is the piggiest pork bill ever. In addition to larger multimillion-dollar projects, my town includes a request of less than $72,000 for sidewalks. WTF? My town can afford to build and repair its own sidewalks without federal help. They don't all have to be done the same week.

silvercamaro wrote:Here is a site that will let you find out what is proposed for your state or town.

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state

This is the piggiest pork bill ever. In addition to larger multimillion-dollar projects, my town includes a request of less than $72,000 for sidewalks. WTF? My town can afford to build and repair its own sidewalks without federal help. They don't all have to be done the same week.

I looked over the list. My town would be getting nada.

I did find the state breakdowns of interest. (I rounded)

California - $23,200,000,000
Texas - $10.800,000,000
Pennsylvania - $4,500,000,000
NY - $1,300,000,000
Colorado - $2,500,000,000
Massachusetts - $1,100,000,000
Montana - $250,000,000
Wyoming - $150,600,000

I did not look at all of the states.

Holy crap. Texas has 1240 projects. Houston has bazillions in road/metro/floodplain work requests. Holy crap.

silvercamaro wrote: WTF? My town can afford to build and repair its own sidewalks without federal help. They don't all have to be done the same week.

And that's the whole idea behind a stimulus. It's what FDR did in 1933. When things get tough, people (and that includes state and local governments) tighten the belt and put off all but essential spending. By priming the pump, the Federal government persuades those state and local governments to get things done now. This gives work to contractors and it gives work to the company that make the supplies and build the equipment that the contractors use. These contractors will also be applying for construction loans and since they've got government contracts in their pocket, the banks are going to be lending the money.

It's a lot more useful than just coming up with a new way to cut taxes by an insignificant amount which is not going to lead to the type of increased spending that creates jobs.

If you feel that the government shouldn't be spending any money to stimulate the economy, that's one thing. But if it's a matter of accelerating necessary or desirable projects whose value in terms of money pumped into the economy in a meaningful way exceeds their cost, that's something else. Neither Obama nor the Republicans are asking the tough questions, which aren't whether it's a good or a bad project or whether it could be put off until later. The question should be how much will the project actually stimulate the economy.

The sidewalk may well be too insignificant a project in and of itself, but if it's tied into a number of similar projects that are going to keep local contractors busy, then it is a valid use of stimulus funds (certainly far better than money spent on think tank type projects that don't directly or indirectly provide much of a stimulus).

silvercamaro wrote:Here is a site that will let you find out what is proposed for your state or town.

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state

This is the piggiest pork bill ever. In addition to larger multimillion-dollar projects, my town includes a request of less than $72,000 for sidewalks. WTF? My town can afford to build and repair its own sidewalks without federal help. They don't all have to be done the same week.

According to the site (at least in California -- I didn't check the other states), these are proposals that have been requested by mayors. The site doesn't say whether any of these proposals are actually in the pending bill or would receive funding if the bill passes in its present form.

In other words, this seems to me to be a local wish list, not necessarily an accurate description of the package. --Bob

silvercamaro wrote:This is the piggiest pork bill ever. In addition to larger multimillion-dollar projects, my town includes a request of less than $72,000 for sidewalks. WTF? My town can afford to build and repair its own sidewalks without federal help. They don't all have to be done the same week.

I'm curious -- how much sidewalk will $72K buy in Norman? Have you priced ADA compliant sidewalks lately? Cost estimates seem to vary widely, but you'll be lucky to get more than one block's worth of good sidewalks for that price. Austin has a comprehensive sidewalk plan that has a price tag of nearly a billion dollars. I don't know if they've asked for any stimulus funds, but I'm sure they wouldn't turn down any money the feds might offer.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/bicycle/down ... tation.pdf

TheConfessor wrote: I'm curious -- how much sidewalk will $72K buy in Norman? Have you priced ADA compliant sidewalks lately?

Probably not all that much, which is my point, really. Why should taxpayers from across the nation (and future generations) help pay for any of them? BTW, ADA-compliant curb cuts to existing sidewalks are requested separately. To me, this is like paying for a cup of coffee on a bank debit card from an overdrawn account, and having the bank add on big service charges for "honoring" the overdraft.

silverscreenselect wrote:

gsabc wrote:Not necessarily wasteful, but definitely not belonging in a spending package meant to stimulate the economy. Leave the pork and pet projects where they belong, buried in the massive bills passed in the dead of night just before a Congressional vacation period.

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
pretty sure I didn't spend over half the price of my house on furniture for said house

Mebbe not, but my home insurance has that amount (half the house value, not $248 million) in coverage for the contents. It's prolly intended to cover clothing and other necessities as well, but that's the total.

If you want to stimulate the economy, public works projects are the way to go and frontloading things to do now that sooner rather than later makes sense. Plus, overpaying to a certain extent in order to keep the money here in the United States rather than obtaining cheaper materials overseas makes some sense as well.

But boondoggles that do not create jobs directly or indirectly should not be in the package.

I would agree that investing in infrastructure, if done right, can be a positive in many ways, including economic stimulus.

I am fearful that the funding will come with the attached strings that I have heard being considered: a percentage of the workers had to have been unemployed and/or living below a certain multiplier of the poverty line, for example.

Government projects already require a tremendous amount of contract administration. Additional bureaucracy is not the way to help.

peacock2121 wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:Here is a site that will let you find out what is proposed for your state or town.

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state

This is the piggiest pork bill ever. In addition to larger multimillion-dollar projects, my town includes a request of less than $72,000 for sidewalks. WTF? My town can afford to build and repair its own sidewalks without federal help. They don't all have to be done the same week.

I looked over the list. My town would be getting nada.

I did find the state breakdowns of interest. (I rounded)

California - $23,200,000,000
Texas - $10.800,000,000
Pennsylvania - $4,500,000,000
NY - $1,300,000,000
Colorado - $2,500,000,000
Massachusetts - $1,100,000,000
Montana - $250,000,000
Wyoming - $150,600,000

I did not look at all of the states.

CHOKE!

I'm with SC on this one.

The only listed project for our area that I would support is one involving a U.S. Highway.

Montana - $250,000,000 - that's 27,000 for each man, woman & child in the state. I think they should just cut us a check....


t.

tlynn78 wrote:Montana - $250,000,000 - that's 27,000 for each man, woman & child in the state. I think they should just cut us a check....


t.

You should move to Wyoming.

tlynn78 wrote:- of what they consider wasteful spending in the stimulus package. I have to say I agree with most of these, although not all of them...

Of course that list doesn't include Republican pork.

You should move to Wyoming.

Only if I could take my job. And since I work for the State.... Hey! maybe I'll get one of those hybrid cars!


t.

tlynn78 wrote:

You should move to Wyoming.

Only if I could take my job. And since I work for the State.... Hey! maybe I'll get one of those hybrid cars!


t.

Yeah, but if somebody gave you the Wyoming per capita share, you wouldn't have to work for a while.

tlynn78 wrote:Montana - $250,000,000 - that's 27,000 for each man, woman & child in the state. I think they should just cut us a check....


t.

There are only 9,259 people in Montana?

tlynn78 wrote:Montana - $250,000,000 - that's 27,000 for each man, woman & child in the state. I think they should just cut us a check....


t.

$250,000,000 / 967,440 (2008 population) = $258.41 per person. I assume your estimate of 27,000 refers to pennies.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:Montana - $250,000,000 - that's 27,000 for each man, woman & child in the state. I think they should just cut us a check....


t.

There are only 9,259 people in Montana?

What is with men and math?

Their standards are way too high.

TheConfessor wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:Montana - $250,000,000 - that's 27,000 for each man, woman & child in the state. I think they should just cut us a check....


t.

$250,000,000 / 967,440 (2008 population) = $258.41 per person. I assume your estimate of 27,000 refers to pennies.

see!

peacock2121 wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:Montana - $250,000,000 - that's 27,000 for each man, woman & child in the state. I think they should just cut us a check....


t.

There are only 9,259 people in Montana?

What is with men and math?

Their standards are way too high.

REC!