We had a lot of fun with the nonexistent Congressional Districts and the jobs-from-nowhere hidden throughout recovery.gov. But with Pelosi and Obama talking about a second stimulus (through the rerouting of TARP funds), its time to point out some egregious failures in the first stimulus. Senators Coburn and McCain just released a document called "Stimulus Checkup" in which their staffs examined 100 projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Some of these stories are stunning and valuable talking points. I've read through the document and called out some of the better stories below, by state.
National
#4, p.7 -- Research to Develop Supersonic Corporate Jets ($4.7 million)
#12, p.15 -- Broadband Map that May be Obsolete by the Time It's Complete ($350 million)
#42, p.28 -- States Spend Big Bucks on Stimulus Highway Signs ($1.3 million)
#66, p.39 -- Youth Summer Jobs Program Fails to Put Kids to Work ($1.2 billion)
#72, p.41 -- Half of Stimulus Contracts Not Competitively Bid
Arizona
#50, p.32 -- Arizona Ants Work While Some Arizonans Remain Unemployed ($950,000)
#52, p.33 -- Firm with Tax Fraud, Pollution History Wins Road Contract ($21.8 million)
Arkansas
#31, p.24 -- Contemporary Art Sculpture: A Series of Giant Tubes ($13,000)
#54, p.33 -- Arkansas Teachers to Attend Education Conference ($413,124)
#89, p.49 -- School District Splurges on iPod Touches ($75,129)
California
#5, p.8 -- Water Pipeline to a Money-Losing Golf Course ($2.2 million)
#11, p.14 -- All Aboard the Wine Train ($54 million)
#37, p.26 -- Another Golf Course Gets Recycled Water ($831,700)
#49, p.31 -- California Gets Money to Upgrade Computer System...Twice ($60 million)
#71, p.41 -- Beautification of Hollywood's Sunset Strip ($1.1 million)
#73, p.41 -- Hollywood Entertainment Museum ($20,000)
Colorado
#35, p.25 -- Study of Wildflowers in a Ghost Town ($448,995)
#67. p.39 -- Colorado Climbing Gym Gets Renewable Energy Grant for Solar Panels ($157,800)
#68, p.40 -- Colorado Dragon Boat Festival ($10,000)
#96, p.52 -- Museum Receives Geothermal Grant after Hosting Stimulus Signing Ceremony ($2.6 million)
Georgia
#20, p.19 -- Repaved Georgia Road ... Getting Repaved Again ($88,000)
#27, p.22 -- County Agency Mismanages Millions, Gets Millions More ($11.9 million)
Illinois
#9, p.12 -- Dinner Cruise Company Gets Terrorism Prevention Money ($943,190)
Maryland
#28, p.23 -- Free Rides on a Water Taxi to Relieve Downtown Congestion ($1.6 million)
#85, p.47 -- Town Doesn't Know What to Do With Money ($25,000)
Missouri
#27, p.27 -- Martini Bar and Brazilian Steak House Remodeling ($100,000)
#63, p.37 -- Locals Plan Bridge Funding, Feds Insist on Paying ($5 million)
New Hampshire
#39, p. 27 -- New Hampshire Buys Buses it Doesn't Need ($2 million)
North Carolina
#21, p.19 -- Little-Used Bridge for Beachgoers Gets a Paint Job ($3.1 million)
#41, p.28 -- Stimulus-Funded Workers with No Work ($3.2 million)
#47, p.30 -- College Students Visit Costa Rica for Summer Studies ($564,635)
#58, p.35 -- "Math and Literacy Coaches" for North Carolina Teachers ($4.4 million)
#74, p.42 -- Controversial Helicopter Program Gets Stimulus Boost ($20,000)
Ohio
#92, p.50 -- Ohio Town to Turn Railroad Crossings into "Quiet Zone" ($800,000)
Oklahoma
#18, p.18 -- Oklahoma River Cruise Boats Get Transportation Funding ($1.8 million)
#59, p.36 -- OSU Professor to Study Alaska Native Grandparents ($1.1 million)
#99, p.54 -- Learning to Cooperate by Observing Birds ($90,000)
Oregon
#2, p.5 -- Renovations for Federal Building as Expensive as New Building ($133 million)
#38, p.26 -- Recovering Crab Pots Lost at Sea ($700,000)
#88, p.48 -- Removing Lead Paint from a Pedestrian Bridge ($3.5 million)
Texas
#32, p.24 -- Surf and Squat Rest Stop in Texas ($13.8 million)
#100, p.54 -- Climate-Controlled Water Taxis Get New Home ($750,000)
Showing posts with label stimulus bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stimulus bill. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Gov. Perry got it right and needs to stand tall
Example: The "stimulus" bill provides Texas with $500 Million for unemployment, but obligates the state to spend an additional $100 million/year from now to eternity. Is that a deal or extortion?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535040968044863.html
Governors v. Congress
The stimulus sets a long-term budget trap for the states.
Debt-laden state governments were supposed to be the big winners from the $787 billion economic stimulus bill. But at least five Republican Governors are saying thanks but no thanks to some of the $150 billion of "free" money doled out to states, because it could make their budget headaches much worse down the line. And they're right.
The National Governors Association winter meeting in Washington, Saturday, Feb. 21, 2009.
These Governors -- Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Butch Otter of Idaho, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina -- all have the same objection: The tens of billions of dollars of aid for health care, welfare and education will disappear in two years and leave states with no way to finance the expanded programs. Mr. Perry sent a letter to President Obama last week warning that Texas may refuse certain stimulus funds. "If this money expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs," he says.
Consider South Carolina. Its annual budget is roughly $7 billion and the stimulus will send about $2.8 billion to the state over two years. But to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to the likes of Head Start, child care subsidies and special education, the state will have to enroll thousands of new families into the programs. "There's no way politically we're going to be able to push people out of the program in two years when the federal money runs out," Mr. Sanford says.
The Medicaid money for states is also a fiscal time bomb. The stimulus bill temporarily increases the share of state Medicaid bills reimbursed by the federal government by two or three percentage points. High-income states now pay about half the Medicaid costs, and in low-income states the feds pay about 70%. Much of the stimulus money will cover health-care costs for unemployed workers and single workers without kids. But in 2011 almost all the $80 billion of extra federal Medicaid money vanishes. Does Congress really expect states to dump one million people or more from Medicaid at that stage?
The alternative, as we've warned, is that Congress will simply extend these transfer payments indefinitely. Pete Stark, David Obey and Nancy Pelosi no doubt intend exactly this, which could triple the stimulus price tag to as much as $3 trillion in additional spending and debt service over 10 years. But the states would still have to pick up their share of this tab for these new entitlements in perpetuity. Thanks, Washington.
Governors are protesting loudest over the $7 billion for unemployment insurance (UI) expansions. Under the law, states will increase UI benefits by $25 a week. The law also encourages states to cover part-time workers for the first time. The UI program is partly paid for by state payroll taxes imposed on employers of between 0.5% and 1% of each worker's pay. Mr. Barbour says that in Mississippi "we will absolutely have to raise our payroll tax on employers to keep benefits running after the federal dollars run out. This will cost our state jobs, so we'd rather not have these dollars in the first place."
The problem for these Governors is that they may be forced to spend the federal money whether they want it or not. Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina slipped a little-noticed provision into the stimulus bill giving state legislatures the power to overrule Governors and spend the money "by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution." Most state legislatures are versions of Congress; they can't say no to new spending.
These five Governors deserve credit for blowing the whistle on the federal trap that Washington has set for their budgets. They stand in contrast to most of the other Governors, who are praising the stimulus as a way to paper over their fiscal holes through 2010. But money from Congress is never as free as it looks, as the banks can attest. Don't be surprised if two years from now states are still facing mountainous deficits. They will have their Uncle Sam to thank. - WSJ
(And their lack of having a backbone) - Peggy Venable
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535040968044863.html
Governors v. Congress
The stimulus sets a long-term budget trap for the states.
Debt-laden state governments were supposed to be the big winners from the $787 billion economic stimulus bill. But at least five Republican Governors are saying thanks but no thanks to some of the $150 billion of "free" money doled out to states, because it could make their budget headaches much worse down the line. And they're right.
The National Governors Association winter meeting in Washington, Saturday, Feb. 21, 2009.
These Governors -- Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Butch Otter of Idaho, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina -- all have the same objection: The tens of billions of dollars of aid for health care, welfare and education will disappear in two years and leave states with no way to finance the expanded programs. Mr. Perry sent a letter to President Obama last week warning that Texas may refuse certain stimulus funds. "If this money expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs," he says.
Consider South Carolina. Its annual budget is roughly $7 billion and the stimulus will send about $2.8 billion to the state over two years. But to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to the likes of Head Start, child care subsidies and special education, the state will have to enroll thousands of new families into the programs. "There's no way politically we're going to be able to push people out of the program in two years when the federal money runs out," Mr. Sanford says.
The Medicaid money for states is also a fiscal time bomb. The stimulus bill temporarily increases the share of state Medicaid bills reimbursed by the federal government by two or three percentage points. High-income states now pay about half the Medicaid costs, and in low-income states the feds pay about 70%. Much of the stimulus money will cover health-care costs for unemployed workers and single workers without kids. But in 2011 almost all the $80 billion of extra federal Medicaid money vanishes. Does Congress really expect states to dump one million people or more from Medicaid at that stage?
The alternative, as we've warned, is that Congress will simply extend these transfer payments indefinitely. Pete Stark, David Obey and Nancy Pelosi no doubt intend exactly this, which could triple the stimulus price tag to as much as $3 trillion in additional spending and debt service over 10 years. But the states would still have to pick up their share of this tab for these new entitlements in perpetuity. Thanks, Washington.
Governors are protesting loudest over the $7 billion for unemployment insurance (UI) expansions. Under the law, states will increase UI benefits by $25 a week. The law also encourages states to cover part-time workers for the first time. The UI program is partly paid for by state payroll taxes imposed on employers of between 0.5% and 1% of each worker's pay. Mr. Barbour says that in Mississippi "we will absolutely have to raise our payroll tax on employers to keep benefits running after the federal dollars run out. This will cost our state jobs, so we'd rather not have these dollars in the first place."
The problem for these Governors is that they may be forced to spend the federal money whether they want it or not. Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina slipped a little-noticed provision into the stimulus bill giving state legislatures the power to overrule Governors and spend the money "by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution." Most state legislatures are versions of Congress; they can't say no to new spending.
These five Governors deserve credit for blowing the whistle on the federal trap that Washington has set for their budgets. They stand in contrast to most of the other Governors, who are praising the stimulus as a way to paper over their fiscal holes through 2010. But money from Congress is never as free as it looks, as the banks can attest. Don't be surprised if two years from now states are still facing mountainous deficits. They will have their Uncle Sam to thank. - WSJ
(And their lack of having a backbone) - Peggy Venable
Friday, February 20, 2009
Gov. Perry Takes Stimulus Money -- on his own terms
Gov. Rick Perry has long been a taxpayer advocate.
This week, he wrote a letter to President Barack Obama in response to stipulations in the $787 billion stimulus package. "On behalf of the people of Texas, please allow this letter to certify that we will accept the funds in H.R. 1 and use them to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers," Perry said. "I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up."
Thanks for protecting Texas taxpayers, Gov. Perry! Long after the “stimulus” money is gone, we’ll be paying for it. We should not also be paying for government programs it could be used to create or expand.
You tell ‘em, Gov Perry! Read the letter here:
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/11969/
This week, he wrote a letter to President Barack Obama in response to stipulations in the $787 billion stimulus package. "On behalf of the people of Texas, please allow this letter to certify that we will accept the funds in H.R. 1 and use them to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers," Perry said. "I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up."
Thanks for protecting Texas taxpayers, Gov. Perry! Long after the “stimulus” money is gone, we’ll be paying for it. We should not also be paying for government programs it could be used to create or expand.
You tell ‘em, Gov Perry! Read the letter here:
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/11969/
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thanks, Sen. Cornyn
It's well worth a read - and if you have not done so yet, sign up on www.NoStimulus.com and Americans for Prosperity will keep you updated on what is happening with the trillion-dollar spending (stimulus) bill.
Dallas Morning News - February 13, 2009
CORNYN: HERE'S THE BLUEPRINT FOR A REAL STIMULUS
On Monday, President Barack Obama argued that we cannot rely on the same strategies that got our economy into this crisis to get us out of it. I agree. I voted against the economic stimulus bill as it moved through Congress – and will vote against the final bill today – because I believe it replicates a failed strategy. A stimulus bill is a good idea if it's focused on the right priorities, which was Obama's original vision. The administration said it wanted a bill that was timely, targeted and temporary. If the bill had reflected that spirit, the president's goal of 80 votes in the Senate might well have been in reach. But we never saw the bill the president said he wanted. Democrats in Congress redefined "stimulus" to mean nearly anything any of them desired, with predictable results.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-cornyn_13edi.State.Edition1.265c31f.html
Dallas Morning News - February 13, 2009
CORNYN: HERE'S THE BLUEPRINT FOR A REAL STIMULUS
On Monday, President Barack Obama argued that we cannot rely on the same strategies that got our economy into this crisis to get us out of it. I agree. I voted against the economic stimulus bill as it moved through Congress – and will vote against the final bill today – because I believe it replicates a failed strategy. A stimulus bill is a good idea if it's focused on the right priorities, which was Obama's original vision. The administration said it wanted a bill that was timely, targeted and temporary. If the bill had reflected that spirit, the president's goal of 80 votes in the Senate might well have been in reach. But we never saw the bill the president said he wanted. Democrats in Congress redefined "stimulus" to mean nearly anything any of them desired, with predictable results.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-cornyn_13edi.State.Edition1.265c31f.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)