Skip to main content

What we're apparently ready to shovel is ... more pork and earmarks

Kids Prefer Cheese sent me to TheDay.com, where I find the best assessment yet of the oxymoron of funding only shovel-ready projects in the pending Bail-out bill.

What exactly constitutes shovel-ready? Just ask Chris Dodd, who knows what's in, and what's out, and how to work the margins to get more dough for the home team:

Norwich - A group of the region's leaders told U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd Friday afternoon that they are skeptical of and confused by key aspects of a potential economic stimulus package Congress hopes to pass by the middle of next month.
The projected $800 billion-plus bill is being promoted as a means to stimulate the economy primarily by putting people to work on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects.

However, the definition of “shovel-ready” has proved elusive and, some say, counterintuitive.

Dodd provided a local example: the $34 million middle school expansion and renovation in Griswold, which broke ground in December, would not qualify because it is already under way.

”If you have a shovel in place, then it is not shovel-ready,” Dodd cracked....

Dodd said Friday he is working to move up the timeline of the Shore Line East expansion to New London so it qualifies as a “shovel-ready” project. The expansion wouldn't currently qualify because it has been delayed until at least 2010.



Of course, local officials in Connecticut aren't quite convinced:

Others are also concerned about a provision that sends funding directly to governors, allowing them to choose the projects.

The arrangement, according to Dodd and some in attendance, renders any boast of “no earmarks” in the package disingenuous, instead passing it from the federal to the state level.

”We need to get this money as close to the ground floor as possible,” East Lyme First Selectman Paul Formica said, echoing comments of other leaders at the meeting.

[Mark] Oefinger {town manager, Groton CT], like others, expressed concern that the stimulus will not provide long-term benefits or jobs.

”I think it's going to be dumping a lot of money down the rat hole and not have a lot to show for it,” he said.


Yeah, but if you happen to raise questions about whether or not this hastily conceived exercise in dispersing $825 Billion in newly printed money will actually work, according to one of our local liberal bloggers with delusions of adequacy, you want nothing more than to f**k the country for another two years by being obstructionist and hope that the country blames the ass-raping on Democrats when the mid-term elections roll around.

Comments

Tyler Nixon said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tyler Nixon said…
Oh,but Steve they're returning "maturity" to power...the "adults" are back in charge.

Nothing like a bunch of bitchy partisan (and crypto-partisan) nannies to run our lives for us.

The level of partisan bile you referenced is such cheap cover for the philosophical, intellectual, and practical bankruptcy of this newest rendition of ad hoc national government expansionist profligacy, centered around and reinforced by a worshipful cult of personality.

I am sorry, it just is. I hear plenty of (real) liberals expressing worry about Obamalemmings.

Some of these folks are beyond-the-pale nast, vicious, and blindly-worshipful of apparently anything Obama wants, especially in his service to eternal Democrat Government dominance, patronage, and political hegemony throughout the land.

They are a mirror-image answer to Bush's 25%er absolutists, except their Kool Aid is blue.
Anonymous said…
Partisanship is so odd... If the Republicans wanted to win in a walk in two years, all they would have to do is object enough to be on record and then sit back and let Obama do whatever he wants. It's precisely because I don't want the Republicans to win in two years (without massively reforming their party, at least) that I feel it's so utterly important that we stop Obama's suicidal fiscal policy.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...