GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds

Meanwhile, across the bay, Oakland is planning on a "mass layoff" of 140 police officers from its staff of 800 officers. Oakland has long had a crime problem that this action will not help.

I have nothing against cute little varmits, but this sure doesn't strike me as wise or defensible.

Here is the article about the Oakland Police:

Cuts to Police Force Test a Safer Oakland - WSJ.com

celticlord said:

How many jobs does protecting an ecosystem produce?

Click to expand...

The exact number won't be known until this fall when the project is scheduled to begin. NOAA’s Perry Gayaldo had this to say about it:

The landscape and hydrology requires teams of workers.

“You need engineers to figure out where to break down the levies to get the water in,” Gayaldo said. “You need fishery biologists to help determine what the habitat needs to look like.”

Gayaldo adds that botanists will be employed to decide what sort of vegetation is necessary. And they’ll need to hire heavy equipment operators to run shovels and backhoes to move earth. Crane operators are required to lift and position gigantic steel culverts to contour the water flow.

Click to expand...

Of Mice and Myth The Speakers Lobby FOXNews.com

What is the economic growth realized from ecosystem protection?[/QUOTE]

I believe that could be accomplished at least in part through long term management of the ecosystem. Another aspect to the project is it benefits steelhead trout, Chinook salmon and smelt which could offer recreational value also.

celticlord said:

How many jobs does protecting an ecosystem produce?

Click to expand...

tumbleweed said:

The exact number won't be known until this fall when the project is scheduled to begin. NOAA’s Perry Gayaldo had this to say about it:

Click to expand...

All well and good, but doesn't this underscore the point that this project is not stimulative spending, and while it may be justifiable on other grounds, has no business being included in legislation presumably oriented towards stimulating the economy?

This particular program may only cost $16Million, but that's $16 million that is not being spent on creating jobs. That's $16 million that is not repairing roads and bridges. That's $16 million that is being borrowed and essentially wasted.

celticlord said:

What is the economic growth realized from ecosystem protection?

Click to expand...

tumbleweed said:

I believe that could be accomplished at least in part through long term management of the ecosystem. Another aspect to the project is it benefits steelhead trout, Chinook salmon and smelt which could offer recreational value also.

Click to expand...

I believe that is a whole lot of words to say "nobody knows."

apdst said:

Such as? No doubt there are some, but what are they?

Click to expand...

It seems both sides of the aisle are lobbying the hell out of the departments who are holding the purse strings . I found this article from May that gives a bit of insight into personal requests.

Ten of 27 departments and agencies receiving stimulus money have released records of contacts by lawmakers under Freedom of Information Act requests USA TODAY filed in April. Those records detailed 53 letters, phone calls and e-mails recommending projects from 60 members from February through the end of May. Thirteen of those lawmakers voted against the stimulus package.

Click to expand...

Stimulus spending spawns requests - USATODAY.com

I take it that the 13 of 53 requests mentioned were Republicans, but it might be a bit too soon to get a clear picture of who gets what. With so much of the funds not allocated yet it hard to tell who gets what. Even the definition of what is considered a pet project is debatable at this point. I also noticed that all the departments haven't released records yet.

celticlord said:

All well and good, but doesn't this underscore the point that this project is not stimulative spending, and while it may be justifiable on other grounds, has no business being included in legislation presumably oriented towards stimulating the economy?

Click to expand...

I consider it stimulus spending but questionable on economic growth potential. It's difficult to determine what potential it has until the project is completed. Given the species of fish that it will benefit it's possible that it can be developed for recreational use such as sport fishing which usually generates good revenue. I haven't read anything about the long term use of the area in question yet. The long term jobs it creates could be the long term management and maintenance of the projects.

This particular program may only cost $16Million, but that's $16 million that is not being spent on creating jobs. That's $16 million that is not repairing roads and bridges. That's $16 million that is being borrowed and essentially wasted.

Click to expand...

I outlined the jobs this project would create in an earlier post. These wetland projects were prioritized. If they were to kick the can down the road on this project it could very well be too late to reverse the damage already done, and it's shovel ready.

I don't think the price of this project will detract significant money from the funds they allocated to roads and bridges. That will be funded though money from the stimulus package, plus states already had money allocated for some of these repairs prior to funds they will get from the government.

Are the respective ecosystems going to protect themselves? How can anybody reasonably conclude that this won't create jobs?

Even "pork" like building a bridge to nowhere creates jobs.

Smoke[MaxX] said:

Are the respective ecosystems going to protect themselves? How can anybody reasonably conclude that this won't create jobs?

Even "pork" like building a bridge to nowhere creates jobs.

Click to expand...

So would paying people to sit in a room and look at the wall.

The point is that this is not the type of thing that the stimulus package was touted as covering.

tumbleweed said:

I consider it stimulus spending but questionable on economic growth potential. It's difficult to determine what potential it has until the project is completed. Given the species of fish that it will benefit it's possible that it can be developed for recreational use such as sport fishing which usually generates good revenue. I haven't read anything about the long term use of the area in question yet. The long term jobs it creates could be the long term management and maintenance of the projects.

Click to expand...

Ah, com'on! This argument truly is weak.

Essentially what is being said is: "Well, I don't know how many jobs the money will create, I don't know what economic potential it has, I don't know what species it will help, I don't know what the long term use is going to be, but because it is "eco friendly" we ought to pay for it."

Meanwhile, one of the Senator's from California (you know the one who is really proud of being a Senator and expects all to refer to her using only the formal appelation "Senator") is saying: "If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more."

So my question is, why would we want to throw good money after bad for these cute little mices in the wetlands, until after the Senate passes this Senator's bill, cause if her bill don't pass, they are going to perish anyway!

Isn't it strange that we can predict catastrophy and mayhem 96 months from now (according to Prince Charles) but we can't state explicitly the value of a $16Million project starting in a couple of months.

Man, this is getting more and more out of control by the minute.

Smoke[MaxX] said:

Are the respective ecosystems going to protect themselves? How can anybody reasonably conclude that this won't create jobs?

Even "pork" like building a bridge to nowhere creates jobs.

Click to expand...

Where does the money to pay for these jobs come from?

Your inability to look past direct benefits clouds your economic thinking.

Smoke[MaxX] said:

Even "pork" like building a bridge to nowhere creates jobs.

Click to expand...

Not really. Japan's "Lost Decade" puts that canard down for the count. Japan built all manner of bridges to nowhere, somewhere, and everywhere, with little lasting employment to show for it.

Merely building a bridge is a temporary job. If the bridge is of no benefit, the jobs "created" during its construction evaporate upon completion. Monies are spent, but without lasting impact. The technical term for that is "waste."

People need jobs that last. They need work to do today, but also to do the day after next year.

The temporary jobs from bridges to nowhere are temporary work for today that will deny people work for that day after next year. They are the crack cocaine of employment--good while they last, but the letdown leaves people worse off than before.

Smoke[MaxX] said:

Are the respective ecosystems going to protect themselves? How can anybody reasonably conclude that this won't create jobs?

Even "pork" like building a bridge to nowhere creates jobs.

Click to expand...

Is it going to create enough jobs to make it worth spending the money?

apdst said:

Is it going to create enough jobs to make it worth spending the money?

Click to expand...

Nope. A moment's reflection is all that should be required to establish that a bridge to nowhere can never create enough jobs--especially of the permanent variety--to justify the expenditure.

celticlord said:

Nope. A moment's reflection is all that should be required to establish that a bridge to nowhere can never create enough jobs--especially of the permanent variety--to justify the expenditure.

Click to expand...

It was a rhetorical question...LOL!

apdst said:

It was a rhetorical question...LOL!

Click to expand...

If only it were. Unfortunately, the economic "geniuses" foisting their stimulus nonsense on the American taxpayers make substantially that argument--that bridges to nowhere and similar pork do create enough jobs to justify the spending.

atomsNvoid said:

Ah, com'on! This argument truly is weak.

Click to expand...

That's possible, but not because of any conflicting facts you have presented to challenge it.

Essentially what is being said is: "Well, I don't know how many jobs the money will create, I don't know what economic potential it has, I don't know what species it will help, I don't know what the long term use is going to be, but because it is "eco friendly" we ought to pay for it."

Click to expand...

Actually, if you took the time to read my previous comments in this thread you would have seen where I addressed each of the points you just mentioned.

Meanwhile, one of the Senator's from California (you know the one who is really proud of being a Senator and expects all to refer to her using only the formal appelation "Senator") is saying: "If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more."

Click to expand...

That isn't relevant to this project, which isn't even in her district, and GW wasn't a factor in it's selection that I'm aware of.

So my question is, why would we want to throw good money after bad for these cute little mices in the wetlands, until after the Senate passes this Senator's bill, cause if her bill don't pass, they are going to perish anyway!

Click to expand...

This project isn't species specific, and the mouse isn't even mentioned in the legislation. The mouse and the wetland habitat it shares with other endangered species was in trouble a long time before this stimulus package was a concept. Authorization for the project wasn't chosen by a Senator, it was selected by the NOAA selection process, which included competitive bidding.

Isn't it strange that we can predict catastrophy and mayhem 96 months from now (according to Prince Charles) but we can't state explicitly the value of a $16Million project starting in a couple of months.

Click to expand...

The value of the project has been explained in my previous posts if you care to look, which includes some of the benefits of it.

Hi tumbleweed,

It was not my intent to cast dispersions on your point of view and in fact I had read all of your prior comments. Here is a compilation of the comments that you had made that prompted my post:

The exact number won't be known until this fall when the project is scheduled to begin

Another aspect to the project is it benefits steelhead trout, Chinook salmon and smelt which could offer recreational value also.

I consider it stimulus spending but questionable on economic growth potential. It's difficult to determine what potential it has until the project is completed.

I believe that could be accomplished at least in part through long term management of the ecosystem.

it could be the point where the ecosystem in question becomes uninhabitable, becoming nothing more than a leach field for the sewage systems that seems to be one of the major contributors to it's demise.

Since this mouse is protected by the Endangered Species Act, the government has a legal requirement to help it, and in the process a 1,990 acre ecosystem benefits as well. The ecosystem in question was originally 164,000 acres, but if something isn't done asap there won't even be anything to restore.

Click to expand...

I understand that it is not your responsibility to defend this project and you have made a good case for what you consider to be an important project. The question at hand is whether this project is an economic stimulus project.

It is difficult for me to grasp the "shovel ready" aspect of this project based on your comments. Based on Perry Gayaldo's comments, it would appear this project is still in the planning phase.

But set all of that aside. Consider an annual salary of $150,000 for a man-year of work plus $75,000 for benefits, that is a total of $225,000. So $16Million represents 64 man-years of salary for workers on real "shovel ready" projects.

So that is the choice that has been made: Additional planning/feasability by hydrological engineers and fishery biologists or 64 man-years of salary for a "shovel-ready" infrastructure project.

Based on the needs of the economy and the intent of the Stimulus bill, I would favor the later over the former. You seem to disagree with my choice.

Finally, I would be interested in knowing who you think is accountable for a 164,000 acre ecosystem (for which someone had to be responsible) shrinking to 1,990 acre ecosystem with no properly allocated monies to sustain it? Will the persons/institutions responsible for this unfortunate state of affairs also be responsible for overseeing the $16Million grant?

Sorry if I offended you, I look forward to your response.

atomsNvoid said:

Hi tumbleweed,
Sorry if I offended you, I look forward to your response.

Click to expand...

You don't have anything to apologize for, and I wasn't offended . Sometimes these posts sounds to the reader a bit different than what their intention was. I realize I don't always chose the right wording at times, which could have been the case also.

My frustration is with the politicians who have used the project to score points in a debate intended to discredit it's importance, and not being truthful about it. It's really not just about 1 little mouse.

It's an issue I find interesting, but one I had very little knowledge of until we started discussing it. I'm actually learning more about the project when my point of view is challenged.

The project hasn't started yet so it's a best guess on my part about how many jobs it will create. Another obstacle I ran into was I can't find much info about long term use or planning for these sites.

But set all of that aside. Consider an annual salary of $150,000 for a man-year of work plus $75,000 for benefits, that is a total of $225,000. So $16Million represents 64 man-years of salary for workers on real "shovel ready" projects.

Click to expand...

That's looks like a reasonable formula. If I can find some long term planing for the project I might be able to expand on it.

Finally, I would be interested in knowing who you think is accountable for a 164,000 acre ecosystem (for which someone had to be responsible) shrinking to 1,990 acre ecosystem with no properly allocated monies to sustain it? Will the persons/institutions responsible for this unfortunate state of affairs also be responsible for overseeing the $16Million grant?

Click to expand...

If the project site is managed similar to wetland areas in my state the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife oversee it, with funding from the state licencing fees, user fees in parks, special licence plates, federal grants, etc. There are at least 2 endangered species in this project that I know of so I would think it would qualify for federal funding of some sort.

I believe the state will responsible for it once the project is completed . Given their track record so far in letting this take place isn't reassuring, but having endangered species relying on it for their habitat might be enough to ensure it's preservation.