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 — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...