The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[BeAChooser]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/weatherization-went-awry-audit-shows/

October 19, 2010

… snip …

Money provided in the stimulus bill for making buildings more energy-efficient is finally starting to flow, the Department of Energy’s inspector general says.

Wow, imagine that … stimulus money is "starting to flow" a year and a half after Obama and democrats indicated that passing the Stimulus Bill was so urgent that we shouldn't even take time to read it but learn about it after it passed.

An audit by the inspector general focused on some work done by the Community and Economic Development Association of Cook County, one of 35 agencies in Illinois that are expected to share $91 million over three years. The audit looked at 15 homes and found that 12 failed final inspection “because of substandard workmanship.” In some cases, technicians who tuned up gas-fired heating systems did so improperly, so that they emitted carbon monoxide “at higher than acceptable levels.”

In eight cases, initial assessments of the houses and apartments called for “inappropriate weatherization measures.” In one case an inspector called for more attic insulation but ignored leaks in the roof, which would have ruined the insulation, the audit said. And for 10 homes, “contractors billed for labor charges that had not been incurred and for materials that had not been installed.’’

… snip …

The federal audit said that Illinois had found a 62 percent error rate when it re-inspected homes weatherized by CEDA. And sometimes CEDA was spending more for materials than an individual homeowner would spend, the audit found. Some of the work created fire hazards, the audit said.

Your stimulus dollars at work.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.newsmax.com/slideshows/A-Federal-Stimulus-Dirty-Dozen/106918/slide/1

A Federal Stimulus Dirty Dozen

It’s a “dirty dozen” of stimulus projects — efforts so wacky and wasteful they call into question the sanity of last year’s $787 billion federal stimulus effort. In all, this “dirty dozen” account for a whopping $23,084,512 in taxpayer money — and create a total of, at most, 71 jobs, according to grant applications. That's $325,133.97 per job. Newsmax has taken a close look at a 12 stimulus schemes that leave us scratching our heads, and asking, “What were they thinking?”

 

[drkitten]

http://www.newsmax.com/slideshows/A-Federal-Stimulus-Dirty-Dozen/106918/slide/1

Oh, yeah. Let's cherry-pick the absolute worst 0.03% of the stimulus spending we can find, and then claim that it "call into question the sanity of last year’s $787 billion federal stimulus effort."

Good example.

Because you've not used that particular fallacy in, what, five posts?

 

[lomiller]

After "inheriting" a projected $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009, he's has only pushed through even bigger ones.

Obama’s deficit in 2010 is running below the Bush deficit of 2009

And second, Obama has claimed he will cut the deficit in half by 2013 from what it was under Bush. But this is a bogus assertion since all but one year of Bush's 8 year term saw deficits well under $400 billion.

That $400 billion number doesn’t include off the books spending on the Iraq war so the target is more like $550 billion even if you choose to ignore the massive deficit from Bush’s 2009 budget which would be more like $1.4 trillion with this war spending included.
Returning to the revenue trends from of 2008 would be sufficient to hit your skewed $550 billion target.

Only the last year saw a deficit over that, and that could arguably be because of a recession that democratic actions over the preceeding decades and a democrat controlled Congress (starting in 2006) helped bring about.

Save military expenses the laws covering all major spending items in the US budget all predate 2006. Are you trying to claim that “if not for Democratic interference between 2006 and 2008 the Republicans would have been able to push though sharp cuts to defence spending that would have balance the budget”?

 

[BeAChooser]

Let's cherry-pick the absolute worst 0.03% of the stimulus spending we can find

LOL! What makes you think those were the absolute worst?

How about this one, dk? The single largest earmark in US history.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/futuregen-secures-1-billi_n_743008.html

FutureGen Secures $1 Billion In Stimulus From Energy Department For Clean-Coal

09/28/10

… snip …

"If there was any remaining question as to whether FutureGen is really coming to Illinois, today we have the answer," Durbin said.

Now here's a little history about this project.

First, there is no mention of FutureGen in the final Stimulus bill. During the period before the Stimulus bill was passed, FutureGen was at the TOP of the House Republican list of "wasteful programs" being suggested by the Obama crowd for the stimulus, because it had already been defunded by the US Department of Energy as too inefficient and too costly. Here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/176859/whats-stimulus-earmark-big-ritz/mark-hemingway

In a letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, headlined “New technology makes FutureGen a waste of tax money,” then Secretary of Energy, Samuel W. Bodman, wrote:

The project’s estimated cost has almost doubled and innovations in technology and changes in the marketplace have created other viable options for demonstrating carbon capture and storage on a commercial scale. That diminished the need for a demonstration project.

It became clear the Department of Energy could not, in good conscience, continue to support the program. The likelihood that it would fail, leaving the American people with hundreds of millions of dollars in sunk cost and none of the benefits, is not acceptable.

An MIT report concluded “the U.S. government begin thinking about such a portfolio of demonstration projects and not be singularly focused on any one project such as FutureGen.” And the Washington Post editorial board also concluded the technology was “prohibitively expensive.”

Lying as usual, the Obama administration then publically announced they wanted earmarks like this out of the Stimulus bill, and specifically said they wanted the FutureGen project deleted. So it was deleted. Durbin’s office stated that Obama wouldn't include the project in the stimulus package and one of his aides said “We’ll certainly continue to look for another vehicle down the line.” Another vehicle? They knew all along that the money for it would come out of a little notice billion dollars the bill included "for one or more near zero emission powerplant(s)".

And here it is, a year and a half later, being funded with stimulus money from that bill under that provision. If any of you Obama supporters could be honest with yourself for even one moment, you'd admit that Obama and Durbin had every intention of going ahead with FutureGen once the Stimulus was passed and knew they could get away with it because then it would only required approved by Obama's Secretary of Energy the way the bill was written. In short, they lied to the American public.

What this proves is what many suggested early on about the stimulus … that it is really nothing more than a giant slush fund that could be used to reward left wing democrats, blue states and promote extremist leftwing agendas.

Now according to the first article, construction of the plant won't even start until 2012 … and that is assuming the project still appears technically and commercially sound. They aren't even sure about that!

And how many jobs will the project create? The DOE projects 1900 jobs as a result of that billion in spending … or over $500,000 per job. And most of these won't be even be permanent jobs. The Wall Street journal had looked at the project back when it was going to cost $1.8 billion (still probably will, by the way, so where the rest of the funding is coming from is another uncertainty to add into the mix) and concluded it would create only 150 permanent jobs. Is this really what the American public thought they'd be getting from the taxes to fund the stimulus?

And what kind of project is FutureGen? It was a "shovel ready" one according to this Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030502138.html . This, is what Obama and democrats meant by "shovel ready". A project which wouldn't even put a shovel in the ground until 2012, long after the recession and the need for immediate jobs should have been over.

Seriously, folks, did we really need this project? Or is it just a boondoggle for Obama's home state, Illinois, and one of the most liberal Senators of all? And the result of the energy companies in the FutureGen Alliance donating $3 million to congressional and presidential candidates (of guess which party)?

 

[BeAChooser]

Obama’s deficit in 2010 is running below the Bush deficit of 2009

LOL! Obama was President in 2009 and pushed through much of the spending that occurred in 2009. This "inherited from Bush" excuse is getting old, lomiller.

As for the 2010 deficit being below the 2009 deficit …

… the good news is that the Federal Deficit for 2010 was ONLY $1.29 trillion, down from $1.4 trillion in 2009?

… the good news is that the government only had to borrow 37 cents out of every dollar it spent?

… the good news is that with all that spending unemployment is only at 10%?

And is it good news is that the 2011 deficit will only be $1.0- $1.4 trillion depending on who you listen to? That's far more than it ever was in any year Bush actually was in office.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Lol, the spending in 2009 through 30 September 2010 came from Bush's budget. The first budget from Obama started no earlier than 01 Oct 2010. This "I don't understand how presidential budgets work" thing is getting old, BeAChooser.

 

[BeAChooser]

Lol, the spending in 2009 through 30 September 2010 came from Bush's budget.

LOL! No it didn't. Bush's 2009 budget did not concern spending in 2010. It was only a spending request through September 2009. And let me repeat that. It was a REQUEST. A Congress, where both houses were controlled by democrats, is what actually wrote and passed the funding through September 2009. Bush had no say in the Stimulus bill or the Omnibus Appropriations act that was written and approved by Obama and democrats in late February and March of 2009. The later bill alone totaled $410 billion in spending for fiscal year 2009. Bush had no part in it, DG. And the 2009 budget request by Bush predicted a net deficit of only $400 billion, far below what Obama and the democrats ended up spending thanks to the stimulus and omnibus bills that THEY promoted and passed. So in my view, any deficit beyond that is Obama's to at least share responsibility for enacting. And you simply don't know what you are talking about ... but then that's not all that unusual.

 

[lomiller]

LOL! Obama was President in 2009 and pushed through much of the spending that occurred in 2009.

The 2009 Budget was submitted in early 2008 by Bush. Are you saying Obama simply ignored the Budget legislation?

 

[lomiller]

The later bill alone totaled $410 billion in spending for fiscal year 2009.

nope half that fell under the 2010 budget. The part that falls under 2009 may not appear as part of the budget deficit as it wasn't part of the budget. This would be similar to Iraq war spending not showing up in the budget or the deficit except that Obama did it the way it was intended and included 2010 spending in the 2010 budget.

Bush had no part in it, DG. And the 2009 budget request by Bush predicted a net deficit of only $400 billion,

Bush overestimated revenues by $700 billion, and underestimated payments for things things like UI, etc by $200 billion.

 

[joobz]

Some of you are not being honest. If this were a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress, you would be crying foul.

I would make the same post in that case. I cry foul against the stupid argument. If you wish to accuse me of being dishonest, you should have evidence to support it.

 

[BeAChooser]

The later bill alone totaled $410 billion in spending for fiscal year 2009.

nope half that fell under the 2010 budget.

Nope, wrong AGAIN.


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1105/show

H.R.1105 - Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009

… snip …

This bill totals about $410 billion and covers funding for fiscal year 2009 for the nine federal agencies that were not funded under the regular appropriations process last year.

… snip …

After the 110th Congress and President Bush were unable to reach an agreement on nine appropriations bills in 2008, the Congress extended funding for the agencies covered under the bills until March 6, 2009 under a continuing resolution. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 covers these nine bills and provides funding for the agencies until the end of fiscal year 2009. It totals $410 billion, which, when added to the appropriations bill that were approved last session, amounts to a a 6.7% increase over spending in 2008.

By the way note that it states Bush and the democrat Congress were also not able to reach agreement on funding for the 9 agencies between the end of FY 2008 and March 2009. So in some sense, you can't even say spending between Sept 2008 and March 2009 was only Bush's "fault". It was also the democrat Congresses' fault of which Obama was a part.

 

[lomiller]

Ummm that’s not the stimulus bill it’s referencing the omnibus spending bill that authorized the appropriations for running all the non-defence related government departments.

Once again you seem to have managed an own goal by showing the total non-defence spending under Obama was just over $400 billion in total which utterly refutes your claims of massive spending increases.

 

[BeAChooser]

Ummm that’s not the stimulus bill it’s referencing the omnibus spending bill that authorized the appropriations for running all the non-defence related government departments.

Well, duuuuuuuh! That's exactly what I said it was in my original post (#1188) and in my second post (#1192). You seem to have a reading problem.

 

[lomiller]

The Omnibus spending bill is the legal approval to spend the money Bush budgeted for and which Bush had already signed into Law. It allows the money in Bush's budget to actually be spent, nothing more nothing less.

It’s absurd to try and argue Bush had no input in the spending in his own budget.

 

[BeAChooser]

The Omnibus spending bill is the legal approval to spend the money Bush budgeted for and which Bush had already signed into Law. It allows the money in Bush's budget to actually be spent, nothing more nothing less.

FALSE AGAIN. You can't seen get anything right, lomiller. You just continue to dig the hole deeper . The budget is NOT signed into law. It is merely a PROPOSAL which the President submits recommending funding levels for the next fiscal year. It is up to Congress to actually set the spending limits and hammer out exactly how much will be spent on what programs. After Congress approves an appropriations bill, then the President may sign it into law, or veto it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[lomiller]

Good, you have “mastered” the art of Wikipedia and can now repeat how your own budget process works. Now back up your claim that congress added nearly $1 trillion in new spending to the Bush budget proposal.

(Hint you can’t because your own link proves the appropriations only for 2009 total a little more than $400 billion which is nearly exactly what Bush proposed in 2009 and Obama proposed in 2010 )

 

[BeAChooser]

Now back up your claim that congress added nearly $1 trillion in new spending to the Bush budget proposal.

LOL! You did it again, lomiller. The 2009 Bush Budget PROPOSAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget ) called for revenues of $2.7 trillion and outlays of $3.11 trillion. That's was a predicted deficit of about $400 billion dollars. Since tax receipts were only $2.1 trillion (thanks to a recession that democrats played a large role in causing), another $400 billion must have been added from somewhere to end up with a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. Could part of the delta be TARP and other bailouts (the CBO estimated about $245 billion for that)? Could part of the delta be the portion of the Stimulus spent in 2009 (the CBO estimated that at about $185 billion). I wonder if Obama and the democrat Congress had anything to do with either of those? Because if he/they did, it certainly seems unfair to blame only Bush.

 

[Dorian Gray]

 

[Dorian Gray]

LOL! You did it again, lomiller. The 2009 Bush Budget PROPOSAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget ) called for revenues of $2.7 trillion and outlays of $3.11 trillion. That's was a predicted deficit of about $400 billion dollars. Since tax receipts were only $2.1 trillion (thanks to a recession that democrats played a large role in causing), another $400 billion must have been added from somewhere to end up with a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. Could part of the delta be TARP and other bailouts (the CBO estimated about $245 billion for that)? Could part of the delta be the portion of the Stimulus spent in 2009 (the CBO estimated that at about $185 billion). I wonder if Obama and the democrat Congress had anything to do with either of those? Because if he/they did, it certainly seems unfair to blame only Bush.

Could it be that Bush didn't include the War on Terrah in his deficit, but Obama did?