Stimulus stupidity alert: $460,000/Coast Guard job, $1.5 bil “carbon capturing contest,” $400 mil chlamydia/HIV tests, $45 mil for ATV trails & more!
Yellow Limes calls your attention to more stimulus stupidity in the Senate version of the bill:
Here are some numbers/items (remember, all in the name of “saving jobs, and saving America’s economy”):
Page 41: The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+
Page 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.
Page 32: $1.5 billion (with a “B”) for a “carbon-capturing contest”
Page 64: $3.5 billion for higher education facilities. This is ridiculous as I know in Georgia the Board of Regents has imposed a “temporary” (yea right!) $75 fee per student during this economic crisis. The funds from this per-student fee stays at the school and is used to offset current budget shortfalls.
We at AASU are starting construction on our new student center, all paid for by student fees. No tax money has been used during any process of this planning. How about asking other higher education institutions to do the same, or hold off on any renovations, additions, etc.?
Tom Jones notes another $200 million for DoD plug-in car stations and crunches the numbers: 53,526 plug-in cars = >$3700/car.
And check these out:
P. 45: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration.” ATV owners, rejoice.
P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.
Last night: Stimulus stupidity alert: $75 million for smoking cessation
***
The WSJ pulls out the porkiest pork in the House version of the bill.
Here’s another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?
Another “stimulus” secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments — that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There’s $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren’t job creators.
As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.
Oh, and don’t forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That’s more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that “No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools.” Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.
The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual “budget baseline” that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it’s hard — no, impossible — to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays — increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his “deficit hawk” credentials.
This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living — or dead — Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, “We won the election. We wrote the bill.” So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
***
Drudge picks up on the STD funding in the House bill.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Fiscal Suicide: 20 Things That Suck « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Stimulus stupidity alert: $460,000/Coast Guard job, $1.5 bil “carbon capturing contest,” $400 mil chlamydia/HIV tests, $45 mil for ATV trails & more! — But As For Me
- Congress Hits the Jackpot! « Conservative Pilgrim
- Jeremiah Films
- The Irascible Chef » Slippery Slope Effect
- Stimulating Socialism « The Rational Actor
- Limbaugh– “I have hijacked Obama’s honeymoon.” « Caeri’s Conservative Chronicle
- The Frog in Hot Water » Blogosphere Buzz
- With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. « Goodtimepolitics
- Are Muslims offended when we call it “pork”? « The Constitution Club
- Dear President Obama, Please Make Jessica Simpson Sexy Again! « Riggword Weblog
- The Baltimore Reporter
- 244-188 « The American Catholic
- Sarah Palin en Español
- Generational Theft Act of 2009 - More pork details « from the foothills
- Porky Porky « Right Wing Chicks
- GOP holds the line: 244-188. This crap sandwich is all yours, Dems — But As For Me
- Obama celebrates spending binge with cocktails and wagyu steak — But As For Me
- Wizbang
- MoveOn Ad: “Every Republican voted with Limbaugh — and against creating 4 million new American jobs.” | Right Voices
- Deficits for the eye can see: « Smart and silly
- What policies could possibly improve our economy? - Page 5 - Volconvo Debate Forums
- Going Going Gone « Right Wing Chicks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: fiscal stimulus
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Barney Frank on the Rule of Law
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Stupak: the Sanctity of Life is Important to Us, Which is Why We Will Slash Care for Old People and Further Enslave Children to Massive DeficitsLegal Insurrection
» David Frum Says We're To BlameStop The ACLU
» Dan Benishek: the alternative to Bart Sell-out Stupak
“Carbon capturing contest”?
Okay. They can give me $1.5 billion – heck, I’ll even do it for the bargain price of $500 million – and I’ll put a big, giant plastic bubble over Washington, DC.
That’ll capture all the hot air from these bloviating socialists and help save the planet.
Write and suggest this. I’ll buy you all a round of drinks with my $500 million…
So the cost of each job is a staggering $450,000? Why don’t we create a company and tell the government we will create jobs for only $300,000. We’d be rich, create a few jobs and save the administration a few bucks. Everyone’s happy…well, except the taxpayers.
It’s all so rediculus, this stimulus.
I want me one of those jobs. Hell I will do whatever it is for 400,000 and save them a cool 60k
Carbon capturing contest? Wouldn’t you have to be a plant to win that?
Well, I would assume that a good chunk of that money would actually go toward acquiring, constructing and/or improving actual things, rather than just salaries.
I mean isn’t that like saying each job at GM costs $681,000 (based on 181 billion in sales and 266,000 employees)?
I keep hoping I wake up and this has all been a bad dream since Nov.4th
A local talk host in the SF bay area asked once, “is this country too stupid to survive?”
It seems to be coming more true every day.
We the sheeple keep electing these crooks. We still have the government we deserve. I pray for my grandkids.
This one nearly knocked me out of my chair! The kind of “stimulus” I could use right about now is $100,000 for a personal snowplow.
“HIV and chlamydia testing”?
What are we trying to stimulate here?
SLAP SLAP
Did that do it for you? NO? I would guess your nightmare is real.
What’s the grand prize for this carbon capturing contest? And how much of that 1.5 bil is to cover the cost of running the contest? That’s the job I want.
Let’s see, 1st prize 10 mill, 2nd prize 5 mill, 3rd prize 1 mill, advertising 1/2 mill. 100k for passing out the prizes party (maybe get some corporate sponsors to kick in). That leaves just a hair over 1 bill for salaries and misc administration and overhead.
Yeah I could that.
On January 28th, 2009 at 10:23 am, chapoutier said:
The whole thing is kabuki on both the left and the right. I wish my team on the right would stop trying to play on THEIR FIELD.
The right is trying to go after this bill by saying it will be wasteful at creating jobs. STUPID tactic. The collectivists have the home field advantage with that strategy! You’ve already conceded the game!
The right should go back to first principles: it is not the government’s JOB to MANAGE the economy, and when it does, it amounts to nothing more than MASS SLAVERY.
Sadly, AJ, our poor nation has 207 weeks and 4 days more (please God, let it be no more than that) of this bad dream.
Sort of like the “Deja Vu” Monty Python skit on steroids.
(Not a fan of “Groundhog Day”.)
So its my responsibility to pay for broadband access for people who choose to live in areas where its not profitable for private business to operate?
The second paragraph speaks of 1 million who have lost their jobs and the potential for another 5 million. Might I remind Michelles readers that the governemnt considers one employeed if they work 1 hour per week. How do they count the unemployeed? In the 80’s the states would perhaps call 300 households and ask questions as to employment and work status. However they do it now I would not trust any numbers the government proposes as the process they use to arrive at any number is surely flawed.
You know better than that chap. That is privately invested money that produces long term employment. It came from investors and not from the government. The money multiplier effect of government spending has a zero sum gain, while private investment creates a five to one gain.
Just please make sure it’s air tight.
And you know what they say about the word ASSUME…
I work with someone that,on his own time,grooms trails for Cross Country Skiing on State land that anyone can use. The snowmobile he uses to groom the trail broke down,so someone is giving him one.Think of all the jobs he is taking from the community. The Govt. could come in,do a study,require that an environmentally friendly snow machine that plugs in is used(more jobs while one is invented/perfected),jobs are created to operate the snow machine,repair it,make sure the trail is up to code(depth,width,hardness…..)etc.,etc.
I have a cheap, effective way to rid ourselves of clap and AIDs: men, keep your zippers up and women, keep your legs closed. There it is. And talk about 100%… whoo… can’t beat it. I wonder, can I get a $400,000,000 check for saving our government this money? I’d even take 10s and 20s.
On another note, how is spending money on STD testing covered by the enumerated powers?
Family, my point was not to get into private vs. public. My point was that it is silly to simply divide the amount of that expenditure by the number of employees.
For all we know $510 million of that is going toward actual tangible things (like raw materials for construction or whatever) that presumably the Coast Guard needs and only $62 or so million will go to the actual salaries of those new jobs.
Here’s an “alternative:” Instead of spending money so that the DoD can buy “alternative energy vehicles,” force Congress to sell their Gulfstreams, and use that money to buy domestic hybrids.
The new name for this bill is the stupid voter bill of 2009.
Of course, but I’d bet, seeing as it is allocated for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” that my assumption is a little more grounded in reality than the assumption others are making here that we are just giving people $400K+/yr jobs.
But isn’t that similar to what you did in justifying the exorbitant expense of Obama’s inauguration over President Bush’s?
Since the condom funding was tossed.
But what about syphillus? No one gets that anymore? There’s another $500 million.
I had a battery powered tank when I was a kid. Even put it together myself. Won every war it was in.
I know the the USCG is trying to upgrade coastal vessels in fleet to a littoral combat ship level …. I also know that many of the existing ships need upgrades as they are taking on most of the Coastal defense duties and assisting the Navy. I must , in the name of transparency, state that I am a flotilla staff officer with the USCG auxiliary. That said, I will be the first to fire salvos at the Coast Guard if these funds are not for acquisition of upgrades or base improvements. My cynic nature tells me, that there is NO entity that would turn down money handed down to them…. no one !! and that bothers me greatly.
No. That isn’t even close to being the same thing. That is a simple fact that securing and taking care of more people cost more money. And btw the total costs of the 2005 and 2009 inaugurations were very similar.
This is stating the simple fact that, especially when talking about a business that is constructing, purchasing or improving actual things, it is absolutely stupid to assume that all your budget goes into salaries, which is exactly what MM is implying.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper in the long run to let HIV go undetected where it could run rampant and thin the population a bit?
And undetected Chlamydia can cause infertility which negates the need for contraception and limits the future drain on state CHIP programs.
Just a thought,
Chairman MaoSpeaker Pelosi…T elucidate, when speaking of Obama’s inauguration, all the media outlets were talking overall cost (about $150 million), including security, whereas the $40 million for Bush ignored the close to $100 million also spent on security. How a mistake/deception so obvious was allowed to fester, I’ll never know.
Chap
I do agree with you that it is silly to divide the total government expenditures by the number of jobs created.
BUT
Don’t you agree that this excessive government spending will be cause incredible inflation.
Well, I’ve looked, and looked again, and looked yet once more.
I still don’t see that our gracious, lovely hostess is stupidly implying that all the budget goes into salaries.
She is stating – clearly – that
Now, it is quite another matter if someone is stupidly – to use someone’s own term – inferring – or assuming, that Michelle was implying that (which she was not).
Is it that important to create an argument, that one would blatantly falsely spin our hostess’s words?
Probably, unless the government follows up on the stimulus with serious tightening of fiscal and monetary policy in the aftermath. That will be Obama’s real test, and opportunity.
Maybe you missed the headline that says” $460,000/Coast Guard Job”. That is exactly the impression she was creating. I am not saying she was being intentionally misleading. Just wrong.
And certainly all those posters that were like “I wanna get me one of those cushy jobs! I’ll do it for $300,000″ certainly got that impression.
Don’t be obtuse and argumentative just because I posted it.
Usually, you’re smarter than this, so it comes as a surprise you’d make such a dumb analogy. The correct way of looking at this is that GM receives an average of $681,000 in revenue per worker. That’s in the private sector. That analogy doesn’t apply when discussing how tax dollars are being spent.
If the Coast Guard needs the new equipment, then it needs the equipment and should be able to demonstrate that need. How many jobs are created or saved ought not figure into that calculus.
If you say so-
Healthy dose of reality based pessimism.
Your starting to scare me chap. We are in agreement.
Its about money coming in (from whatever source, revenue or government allocation) being a poor indicator of what is being spent on each job, when something of real tangible value is being created or acquired.
Al Qaida has nothing on the US government. The Federal government of the United States is America’s most destructive enemy in history. I cannot imagine a foreign power doing more lasting harm to America than these idiots are doing right now. Astonishing! The jihadis and the Russians should cool their jets and just wait for America’s own politicians to finish her off from within. …. “…defend from enemies, foreign and domestic…”
If Obama does not use the opportunity that this will create to take a long hard look at entitlement spending, I will consider that a personal failure on his part.
It would cost less to incarcerate the members of congress for rampant stupidity.
I would call you a closet conservative as some on this board have done, but I think there are a lot of dems out there who are in total agreeement with conservatives on unfettered gov’t entitlement spending, and even immigration issues. Unfortuantely, the far left wing faction has seized control of the party and are pushing for nothing less than pure socialist policies. Anyway, Chap, I do truly hope you are the “typical” dem party member rather than the spokesmen the party keeps trotting out there.
Then start considering him a failure now, because as we all know, no Democrat will ever dismantle what has taken them decades to assemble – an entitlement dependent voting block.
BTW, are you really sure your per-person cost analysis-comparison of Obama’s and Bush’s inaugurations isn’t the same as MM used in the above report? I think it is -
Chap, you’re not playing with words with the phrase “take a long hard look”, are you?
Plus, I believe it’s reasonable for many here to be extremely skeptical of any future cost cutting when we’re talking about spending trillions now. Why do we have to wait on cutting entitlement spending? Given the state of the economy, shouldn’t we be looking at that now and not later?
No. It needs to be totally revamped. “Pork” is nothing.
I agree.
Realistically, no one is going to come to the table on that now. In two years…hopefully.
Given the state of the economy, shouldn’t we be looking at that now and not later?
Salt
And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for you and your meddling dog!
That is essentially the main problem. Congress is a one-trick pony. If the government is not looking to cut spending during a recession and is instead looking to increase spending by trillions, under what conditions will they ever come back to the table on cutting entitlement spending? Certainly not when economic times are better because then they’ll rationalize that we can afford to do it (inject the “for the children” cry here).
I know you don’t believe that the amount of pork is the issue, but it’s the culture that pork helps foster: Spending rationalized by even more spending.
It’s the only answer that Congress ever seems to have.
Competitive coal mining?
my guess is that it’s hush money to get Al Gore to shut the frell up for the next 4 years.
Doesn’t a nuclear powered ship count?
::tries to erase the mental image of a square rigged sea fighter::
This entire thing IS income transfer – from us to those ACORN criminals.
How much does it cost to mail a meatloaf?
The automakers should be giving cars to the government for free at this point.
I recall attending a function at a college “art” museum, under each piece of “art”, there was a caption: “…created by artist with a grant from the NEA…”. Then, underneath that caption was another: “…Purchased from the artist for the museum with a grant from the NEA…”. As far as I am concerned, the NEA owned the “art” when it commissioned said artist. The tax payer was double-pumped for this garbage. The NEA is a waste.
Question: How do you know when liberals are lying?
Answer: When their lips are moving.
Thats almost funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.
Hey – Austin TX is getting $800,000 for a 36 hole frisbee golf course. Sweet.
What good is Frisbee golf without a dog? I think they should buy us each a dog.
Show of hands: Who wants a government sponsored Golden Retriever?
SSIRONWORKS, WE GET MULTIPLE PUMPED BY OUR UNIVERSITIES ALL THE TIME. WE PAY THE TAXES TO GIVE THEM RESEARCH GRANTS, THEY PUBLISH THEIR RESULTS FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO USE. COMPANIES COME ALONG, BOTH FORIEGN AND DOMESTIC, AND USE THAT RESEARCH AND CREATE PRODUCTS WHICH HAVE PATENT RIGHTS SO THEY CAN CHARGE US OUT THE WAZOO FOR THE PRODUCT, AND THE RESEARCH WAS PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYER. BTW, A HUGE PORTION OF THOSE RESEARCHERS ARE FORIEGNERS FROM NATIONS HOSTILE TO US. NOW THAT’S A PLAN WITH AMERICA’S BEST INTEREST AT HEART.
Oh oh, my charcoal grill is going to knock me right of that one, damn.
If you feel moved to call someone in DC, and toll charges are beyond your means:
Call Capitol Hill Switchboard TOLL FREE:
1-877 851-6437
1-800 828-0498
1-866 340-9281
1-866 338-1015
1-866 220-0044
Supersized debtor nation status here we come.
While Obummer is at it, why doesn’t he ease the path for military spouses to seek employment within the federal government? How many of these 600,000 guvment jobs are going to his cronies and Obummer supporters? At least give the jobs to people who are actually qualified and have college degrees instead of patronage jobs given by those in the know.
The Dems are full of it and we all know it. Anybody who thinks that any of this stimulapalooza pork giveaway will improve our economy are fooling themselves. And that includes the deluded corporate Obummer supporters who met with him this morning.
What was it that I heard about 5+ Billion (with a B) to Acorn? WTF?!?!?!?
Free health care for Democrats.
About 14 months. The Democrats will want to use it as a hammer against the GOP in the next election.
I am sure many will think I am crazy, but I’ll bet Obama ends up being a lot closer to Republicans on entitlement reform than he is to Democrats.
For example…today I worked on a client that, three years ago, transferred all her assets to her children so that now she can qualify for Medicaid to take care of her nursing home expenses.
It is very wrong. And very legal.
Depends on the state. Some require the asset transfer some time before qualifying for medicaid.
I saw it when Dad had a stroke and was in a nursing home for a short while.
The farm would have been lost and Mom would have been lucky to keep the house.
Right. The law prior to February 6, 2006 required three years before qualifying. Which is why it is coming across my desk again now.
As for our personal situation, no doubt that there are situations where you don’t want to bankrupt the family because of an unfortunate situation.
But I am talking about people that have lots of personal wealth that, rather than spend it for the care they know they will need, manipulate the system in order to qualify for the public dole when they really have no business.
There are no easy solutions, but it is infuriating.
It WAS infuriating knowing some of the people who were receiving medicaid.
D*mn Chap, you had to go and blow my “hope” that most dems might oppose growing the wefare state. Rather than trying to force those who are not in truly desperate need off the gov’t dole, your idea is to close loopholes so that someone who has worked their whole life and paid into the system must lose it all before getting anything back for all those years. I agree with you for someone with $10M in assets. But what about the guy who is 65 and has a stroke, and has slaved to save $1M over his lifetime in order to hopefully leave a little to his childeren and grandchildren to make their lives a little better? You think it’s ok for the gov’t to refuse assistance to him until that $1M is gone? Meanwhile, some guy who was not motivated to succeed (didn’t get a degree or motivated to make a better life), and did just enough work to get by, should be provided all the assistance they need? That is just plain wrong and nothing but punishing those who were motivated to do better. Frankly, under your idea of “welfare reform”, I will see no benefit in saving $ and working hard to give my children a better life, because one catastrophic life event can easily mean I lose everything I tried to accomplish. I am better off spending it as I make and have no assets to leave my children. In other words, I am rewarded for being irresponsible and selfish.
Weary Citizen,
Do you really think that the reason most people live paycheck to paycheck is some personal lack of motivation on their part?
We can only have so many business entrepreneurs. And even if everyone were equally capable of succeeding if gosh darn it, they would only try, the country needs ditch diggers and burger flippers too. The great flaw, I believe in conservative thinking is that it tries to take microeconomic principles of personal success and ambition, and think that this translates to the macro level. This is illogical.
And if someone with 1 million can pay for their own care, Then yes I think they should and I think this takes precedence over the accumulation of wealth for transfer to one’s children. I also think that someone who has saved up 1 million dollars should have given some thought to long term care insurance, which is readily available.
There are no guarantees in life. Our concern should not be with ensuring people have something to give their children. If they do, awesome. But not at the expense of forcing taxpayers to foot a bill you are obviously able to cover. For example, if someone without homeowners insurance has a fire, we certainly would not expect the government to pay for the cost of a new house simply so that they can preserve their wealth to pass down, would we?
Obviously the issue is a lot more complicated than we can discuss here, but I do think that any guiding principle of entitlement reform of any kind is to get people off it that don’t need it.
In most cases, YES. Most (not all) made the conscious decision to be “ditchdiggers” etc by not pursuing a better career or applying themselves. So how is that my, or the other taxpayers, repsonsibility for their poor choices? Afterall, aren’t we told all children have equal abilites to succeed, thus why we don’t better target educational spending on those that actually want an education? Now, I am not saying we should throw the poor into the streets, but how is it fair to deny the smae benefits to a middle class person until they too are poor? Isn’t “fairness” a central tenet of being a liberal? Futhermore, what about those who made equivalent earnings for all those years as the person who did save $1M, but spent every dime on vacations, cars, etc? They will be provided assistance just as well as the ditchdigger. In the end they are rewarded for their irresponsible behavior. But the person who saved is punished (or at a minimum, forced to pay very high long term care insurance rates). Beleive me, I have seen this in my own family.
Got it. The collective supercedes the individual. So what incentive does that provide for anyone to work hard, accumulate assets, or save? The gov’t will come and save the day, as long as you are poor.
Agreed 100%, except long term care insurance is something VERY few ever think about until they need it. To compare it to home insurance is a strawman IMO.
I think you and I see “welfare reform” form a different angle. I want to stop giving welfare to the younger lazy layabouts who are either gaming the system (by claiming some bogus disability), or made horriffic decisions (like have 4 kids from 4 different fathers). You, on the other hand, seem more concerned with denying assistance to someone who worked hard their whole lives, paid into the system their whole lives, and managed to save a little $ back. I believe these folks should be rewarded for their efforts, not have to watch it disappear due to a catastrophic event. The cutoff amount is debatable,but I firmly beleive someone who saved $100K-$1M over their lifetimes (and paid a disporportionate amount of taxes to support welfare) should not be asked to liquidate all those assets to be eligible for the same benefits the ditchdiger has. We could force them to pay some portion of long term care costs, which would encourage LTC insurance purchases, but they should be allowed to keep the bulk of their assets to spend or pass down.