Lets look at some of them...
Ok.
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
How exactly is this pork? The Bush administration and the Republicans championed this red tape organisation.. so now they dont want to house it? Wont the construction employ hundreds if not thousands of Americans?
It doesn't have to be pork to be bad policy and ineffective as a stimulus.
The fed government is sitting on $1.3 TRILLION of property and Congress refuses to sell it. Yet, we're going to spend $500 billion on a new building. And then another quarter billion on furnishing it? What's wrong with using less money to retrofit existing buildings and using the same furniture they do now?
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
Fear that the US government should actually save on gasoline bills.. This smells of Detroit buying off the Republicans because Detroit does not have hybrids that are worth a damn yet.
Not buy, but lease. And the
AP looked into this nonsense last year:
Americans love their cars, and so apparently does Uncle Sam—who's got 642,233 of them.
Operating those vehicles—maintenance, leases and fuel—cost taxpayers a whopping $3.4 billion last year, according to General Services Administration data obtained and analyzed by The Associated Press.
While Cabinet and other officials say they need the vehicles to do their jobs, watchdogs say mismanagement of the government fleet is costing millions of dollars a year in wasteful spending.
we've got costs going up for no reason, agencies buying cars they don't need, cars disappearing at random...but we shouldn't trim that budget, instead, we should expand it by 20%??? What's wrong with the current inventory? Why should taxpayers buy new cars for bureaucrats rather than themselves? That makes real sense.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
Sounds sensible. If they can prevent STD's then they will save on medical bills.. oh wait, that is not what the HMO's and drug companies want... Smells again of industry pressure.
You don't need $400 million to properly educate citizens about the spread and infection rates of STD's. In fact, you need not spend any more than we already do.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
Sounds sensible. Bet the Washington sewer system is like many old cities.. a total wreck.
This one does sound reasonable. But this shouldn't be handled as emergency stimulus spending.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
Again smells of Republican sewer tactics.. wonder if they are worried that a new census will weaken their grip on power even more.
Meanwhile, as Tom Coburn rightly acknowledged yesterday:
How about $1 billion for the 2010 census? So everybody knows, the census is so poorly managed that the census this year is going to cost twice—in 2010 is going to cost twice what it cost 10 years ago, and we wasted $800 million on a contract because it was no-bid that didn't perform. Nobody got fired, no competitive bidding, and we blew $800 million.
So, you sure you wanna call such criticism illegitimate?
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
Ahn I see the tobacco companies at work here. Spend 75 million and maybe save hundreds of millions in medical bills in the future.. worth it if you ask me.
Yeah, this makes sense. Congress just passed SCHIP which will require an additional 61 million more smokers to pay for...
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
So only those with money should have access to an education and computer facilities?
Are you serious? Since when should the fed government get involved in creating public computer centers in community colleges? Much less as emergency spending?
• $500 million for flood reduction. projects on the Mississippi River.
So spend 500 million to save billions in damage due to the river going over its banks? What is not sensible in that? Or do the insurance companies like to pay out billions in damages?
This ain't emergency spending.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
Very sensible.. Extremely sensible and will put tons of people into work. Not to mention the savings for the government in heating and power.
All you're doing is playing a shell game. Taking my tax dollars, skimming an administrative factor just to build/retrofit buildings in DC rather than leaving those dollars in the private sector to actually, you know, create wealth rather than temporary jobs subsidized by government spending.
I've listened to both sides of this debate and I'm not convicned either side knows exactly what measures will actually put this country back on the right financial footing anytime soon regardless of what "stimulas" package or "spending" bill is thrown out there.
But people can surely draw conclusions about how some of the proposed spending ain't stimulus spending at all...unless you buy Obama's nonsense that all government spending is stimulative.
IMO, a stimulas package should be something that takes government money and targets certain programs, activities and/or entities that can help boost the nation's economy in the short-term.
And at the end of that short-term...all those temporary jobs disappear...unless the government continues plowing money into their pockets.
Makes sense. :roll:
But when you look at them the way PeteEU outlines them, most would fit because ultimately we're talking about providing employment opportunities.
That create no wealth and create only temporary jobs. These are temporary government jobs programs that completely disappear...unless, as people rightly fear, this emergency spending becomes the baseline spending in future years. In other words, this stimulus spending ain't stimulus spending at all but just more government welfare.
And each one of the proposals WILL employ somebody in some way,
Yeah, like Job Corps. 388 jobs from $160 million in spending. That's $1.5 million per job.
What a deal! :roll:
i.e., PCs for community colleges - the PC components have to be built, the PCs assembled, the community colleges wired or rewired, the PC furniture manufactured, shipped and installed onsite, etc., etc. So, when you look at things in the abstract, maybe they don't make sense to most people. But when you really break it down from start to finish those computers would generate alot of employment opportunities.
Those computers will be built anyways. All that is happening is that the government, with no bidding process (there is no bidding provision in the legislation), will stash government cash in Dell, HP, and Compaq's pockets. And once these community colleges have these PC's, what then? Where will they get the money to maintain them and then replace them, cuz you know that the "public" won't be allowed to use old computer lest the digital gap widen. :roll:
Now, the real question is the timeline: how soon could something like PC installation possibly help a crippled economy in the short-term, i.e., 120-365 days?
It doesn't. As I already noted here before, more then 60% of this spending doesn't happen until after 2010. This ain't stimulus spending.
Nonetheless, we all know how we "spent" our last stimulas checks under former president Bush. Thus, I can see why president Obama's administration would be reluctant to do that again any time soon.
So, lets confiscate a thousand billion plus dollars from the people to spend on temporary spending programs, most of which dn't come until after 2010...there's no sense there.
For those arguing against the stimulas package, I won't say you're wrong for being against it. However, I will say that unless you look deeper into it, you'll be more likely as I was to reject it out of hand.
Wrong, The further we look into it the more disgusted we become. That's why public support is cratering on this...below 40% now.
I'm not 100% for this stimulas package, but until someone comes up with a better "mouse-trap"...
Nuff Said.
What totally inane thinking.
