The stimulus "pork list".. WOW

[phillyd2]

Wow is right! Reminds me of the old saying "the real crime is what's legal".

[lexington86]

2.2 Billion for clean coal?! Cripes..

$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

I tried to warn people about this during the campaigning. The reason that Obama is so in love with "clean" coal is because he knew that Illinois sits over a TON of high-sulfur coal. The only way this high-sulfur coal becomes profitable to mine and burn "safely" is to invest lots of capital into research to discover more efficient ways to remove the sulfur. Essentially, Obama will be using taxpayer money to fund research that will allow his former home state to exploit (and profit from) its otherwise useless coal.

America, you've been had.

[BSH]

The National Parks Service has an anual budget of around $2 billion per year. With this package they are doubling down. That is absurd. Justify why they need the additional 100% of their budget.

First of all, the fact is that a large percentage of this "stimulus", including everything listed above, ought to be included in the regular budget process, and some of the Congress critters acknowledge it. It's a total scam to package up this Democratic wish list and call it a "stimulus" when it's just not.

As far as the NPS in specific, they've been underfunded for years, even before 9/11. They had a major backlog of pending maintenance & repair for their facilities & infrastructure that just kept getting bigger because they never got enough in appropriations to pay for it all. Then after 9/11, they had to start spending a ton of money on "security" and didn't get appropriations for that, either. Combine the increased "security" actions and the backlog of physical infrastructure & maintenance work that they need, and I can justify doubling their budget.

I will call into question whether the NPS should be involved in "security" matters and to what extent, but the maintenance stuff probably DOES qualify as "stimulus" to some extent, because it will put people to work in the near term, and replace construction work disappearing from the private sector.

[adymond]

First of all, the fact is that a large percentage of this "stimulus", including everything listed above, ought to be included in the regular budget process, and some of the Congress critters acknowledge it. It's a total scam to package up this Democratic wish list and call it a "stimulus" when it's just not.

As far as the NPS in specific, they've been underfunded for years, even before 9/11. They had a major backlog of pending maintenance & repair for their facilities & infrastructure that just kept getting bigger because they never got enough in appropriations to pay for it all. Then after 9/11, they had to start spending a ton of money on "security" and didn't get appropriations for that, either. Combine the increased "security" actions and the backlog of physical infrastructure & maintenance work that they need, and I can justify doubling their budget.

I will call into question whether the NPS should be involved in "security" matters and to what extent, but the maintenance stuff probably DOES qualify as "stimulus" to some extent, because it will put people to work in the near term, and replace construction work disappearing from the private sector.

Turn the NPS into a for-profit organization and I am sure it would run more effeciently. Many puclic works projects are underfunded, but I don't see the part in the Constitution that states the federal government is responsible for developing federal parks. I just don;t see it.

[5711-Marine]

OK, so why are they not in the regular budget and in this supposed stimulus plan?

It is one of the oldest political tricks, to attach recurring spending to a spending bill with a title that seems to have one time costs.

[PocketProtector]

OK, so why are they not in the regular budget and in this supposed stimulus plan?



While I agree the government has no freaking business doling out money to community organizations like this you do realize you WERE taking an ultra right wing talking point when you said "acorn gets 4.8 billion" ... this is what I mean about both the far left and the far right, they twist words and numbers to try and shock people and it is unadulterated BULLSHIT.

You can rest assured ACORN will get the bulk of it, and those who get the rest will be just as leftist. Pelosi and Obasm both said, "We won, we write the bill." No surprise here.

Just like this part sticks with the agenda.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...us-war-prayer/

[dc dalton]

It is one of the oldest political tricks, to attach recurring spending to a spending bill with a title that seems to have one time costs.

But I don't get what they gain from that when these are things that are normally in the budget ... seems it would foul things up more than help.

[adymond]

But I don't get what they gain from that when these are things that are normally in the budget ... seems it would foul things up more than help.

If the NPS yearly budget gets doubled through this package they do not need to specificly justify the increase. If the NPS then uses the entire budget they can say "See we used all of our budget and still need more." Without having to fight for the added funding to begin with.

[5711-Marine]

But I don't get what they gain from that when these are things that are normally in the budget ... seems it would foul things up more than help.

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2199.cfm

The CBO projects a spending baseline by assuming that all the laws authorizing spending--such as the highway or farm programs, or even appropriations--will be extended year after year and spending levels will continue even if they expire regularly under existing law. But when it comes to taxes, the CBO's baseline is current statute, and any rates reductions, deductions, credits, etc., that are scheduled to expire are assumed to do so. The lopsided result is that spending is given a free ride under the baseline while any reduction in the growth of taxes is assumed to be temporary.

[dc dalton]

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2199.cfm

Thanks, learned something today