stimulus

[WaterMan]

We could pay for those things by ending the war in Iraq today.

[T_bone65]

I hope to be stimulated later tonight when my wife gets home from bookclub good and toasty

[yo mama]

I hope to be stimulated later tonight when my wife gets home from bookclub good and toasty

Does she text?

[T_bone65]

Does she text?

 

 

[driveby]

Report: In Obama's Chicago, stimulus weatherization money buys shoddy work, widespread fraud

By: Byron York

Chief Political Correspondent

10/19/10 6:06 PM EDT

 

Projects to weatherize homes are a key part of the Obama administration's fusion of stimulus spending and the green agenda. But a new report by the Department of Energy has found serious problems in stimulus-funded weatherization work -- problems so severe that they have resulted in homes that are not only not more energy efficient but are actually dangerous for people to live in.

 

The study, by the Department's inspector general, examined the work of what's called the Weatherization Assistance Program, or WAP, in Illinois. Last year, the Department awarded Illinois $242 million, which was expected to pay for the weatherization of 27,000 homes. Specifically, Energy Department inspectors took a close look at the troubled operations of the Community and Economic Development Association of Cook County, known as CEDA, which is the largest recipient of weatherization money in Illinois with $91 million to weatherize 12,500 homes. (Cook County is, of course, home to Chicago.)

 

The findings are grim. "Our testing revealed substandard performance in weatherization workmanship, initial assessments, and contractor billing," the inspector general report says. "These problems were of such significance that they put the integrity of the entire program at risk."

 

Department inspectors visited 15 homes that were being weatherized by CEDA and paid for by stimulus funds. "We found that 14 of the 15 homes…failed final inspection because of poor workmanship and/or inadequate initial assessments," the report says. In eight of the homes, CEDA had come up with unworkable and ineffective plans -- like putting attic insulation in a house with a leaky roof. In ten of the homes, "contractors billed for labor charges that had not been incurred and for materials that had not been installed." The report calls billing problems "pervasive," with seven of ten contractors being cited for erroneous invoicing. And the department found "a 62 percent final inspection error rate" when CEDA inspectors reviewed their own work.

 

The work was not just wasteful; it was dangerous. Department inspectors found "heat barriers around chimneys that had not been installed, causing fire hazards." They found "a furnace [that] had not been vented properly." The found "a shut-off valve that had not been installed on a gas stove." And they found "carbon monoxide detectors, smoke alarms and fire extinguishers had not been installed as planned."

 

And then there was fraud. At ten of the 15 homes visited, Department inspectors found examples in which "a contractor had installed a 125,000 BTU boiler, but had billed CEDA for a 200,000 BTU boiler costing an estimated $1,000. more." Another contractor "billed for almost four times the amount of drywall actually installed." And another "installed 12 light bulbs but had billed CEDA for 20." (The Department found that CEDA paid almost three times the retail price for each light bulb.) "Billing issues appeared to be pervasive," the report concludes.

 

The report is in the hands of Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, who has been pushing hard for more accountability in the spending of stimulus money. Grassley has complained about this specific program before, and is not happy with the new assessment. "I am concerned that the Department of Energy and state WAPs are failing to prevent fraud, waste and abuse in the massive amounts of taxpayers dollars spent on weatherization projects," Grassley writes in a new letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. After Grassley earlier expressed concerns about weatherization, the Department assured him that the program had "turned the corner" and "made great strides" in cleaning up its operations. "In light of this report, it is clear that the Department's efforts have been inadequate," Grassley writes.

 

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

 

Me too. I mean, the stimulus thing was a total waste that no patriotic Republican would ever be involved with. Well.............

 

Report: Critics of stimulus sought part of $787 billion

 

Michele Bachmann, who has labeled the spending package a failure, quietly tried to steer funds to her district.

 

WASHINGTON - Rep. Michele Bachmann has railed loudly against the federal economic stimulus package passed by Congress last winter, labeling it a failure and making the $787 billion legislation a campaign issue.

 

But that didn't stop Bachmann from quietly trying to steer stimulus money into her district, according to a new report.

 

The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, released a report Monday listing Republicans and conservative Democrats who opposed the stimulus package but nonetheless sought funds for their home districts stemming directly from the bill.

 

In Minnesota, Republican Reps. Bachmann, Erik Paulsen and John Kline -- who all voted against the bill -- wrote letters requesting money for stimulus-funded projects, according to documents obtained by the center under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

 

In a statement, Bachmann said she opposes "the so-called stimulus package because it has been a failure" at job creation, has wasted millions of dollars and created a massive debt.

 

But in one of her letters to the U.S. Department of Transportation seeking funding for the St. Croix River Crossing project, Bachmann touted the jobs the project would create. "MnDOT estimates that the project would directly produce 1,407 new jobs per year while indirectly producing 1,563 a year -- a total of 2,970 jobs each year after the project's completion," she wrote.

 

Bachmann defended her letters requesting funding. "It is my obligation as a member of Congress to ensure stimulus dollars are spent on the most worthy projects," she said.

 

Bachmann has been among the most vocal critics of the stimulus, calling it the "failed Pelosi trillion-dollar stimulus" in campaign advertisements.

 

The Tea Party favorite wrote six letters to the Transportation Department, while Paulsen wrote one.

 

Bachmann, Kline and Paulsen wrote to the Commerce Department about broadband Internet grants.

 

Kline and Paulsen's spokesmen said that while they opposed the bill, they still had an obligation to seek funding for worthy local projects. "These were not 'Bridge to Nowhere'-style projects," said Paulsen spokesman Mark Giga.

 

Like I said, slimy weasels.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[SEC=UGA]

Me too. I mean, the stimulus thing was a total waste that no patriotic Republican would ever be involved with. Well.............

 

 

 

Like I said, slimy weasels.

 

well said.

[driveby]

Me too. I mean, the stimulus thing was a total waste that no patriotic Republican would ever be involved with. Well.............

 

 

 

Like I said, slimy weasels.

No doubt. Easy to say you don't want it, hard to turn down "free" money once it's passed.

[gbpfan1231]

No doubt. Easy to say you don't want it, hard to turn down "free" money once it's passed.

Agree - you may be against the stimulus and vote against it but if it is already done and you have a shot to get a piece of the pie you might as well get some.

 

Different level but I have turned down dessert because I did not want to pay for a complete dessert but when offered for free I did take a bite.

[Azazello1313]

Me too. I mean, the stimulus thing was a total waste that no patriotic Republican would ever be involved with. Well.............

 

Like I said, slimy weasels.

 

while I applaud state and local polticians who stood on principle and said they didn't want stimulus funds, I might not feel the same way if I was in their district. there is really nothing slimy or inconsistent about arguing first, that a big borrowing-and-spending project should not be undertaken; but then after it's passed, trying to make sure your constituency gets its fair share of the spending. that is, unless there is some mechanism whereby you as a lawmaker can exempt your constituency from having to pay back it's share when the bill comes due. as it is, every state and every district is on the hook for paying back their share of the loan whether they like it or not.

[Ursa Majoris]

All well and good and I get why, once the thing is passed, it doesn't make sense to not try and grab a piece of it. No-one ever accused politicians of being principled. Let's leave aside the whole discussion about pork for the moment.

 

I would like to focus on this statement by Ms Bachmann:

 

in one of her letters to the U.S. Department of Transportation seeking funding for the St. Croix River Crossing project, Bachmann touted the jobs the project would create. "MnDOT estimates that the project would directly produce 1,407 new jobs per year while indirectly producing 1,563 a year -- a total of 2,970 jobs each year after the project's completion," she wrote.

 

So why does she (and other Republicans) routinely tout that the stimulus doesn't work? Is she - gasp - lying?

[Azazello1313]

All well and good and I get why, once the thing is passed, it doesn't make sense to not try and grab a piece of it. No-one ever accused politicians of being principled. Let's leave aside the whole discussion about pork for the moment.

 

I would like to focus on this statement by Ms Bachmann:

 

 

 

So why does she (and other Republicans) routinely tout that the stimulus doesn't work? Is she - gasp - lying?

 

nobody has ever said that if you spend a trillion dollars it won't directly put some people to work. even if you just dumped it all in a giant hole and burned it, you'd have to hire a good number of people with shovels, wheelbarrows and flamethrowers to make that happen. the bigger question is, what impact does this spending have on the broader economy? does this spending stem the aggregate demand shock, easing investor fears and priming the pump of private sector growth? or is this hoped-for impact offset by pulling money away from more useful and efficient purposes and stoking concerns about future taxes and economic competitiveness, thus fueling rather than easing investor fears and inspiring hoarding rather than growth?

[Yukon Cornelius]

agree 100%. thats why i have asked in previous threads what does it take to really get people mad? to really change things?

well as long as big banks, world banks etc are really controlling things what really can we do?

[Perchoutofwater]

nobody has ever said that if you spend a trillion dollars it won't directly put some people to work. even if you just dumped it all in a giant hole and burned it, you'd have to hire a good number of people with shovels, wheelbarrows and flamethrowers to make that happen. the bigger question is, what impact does this spending have on the broader economy? does this spending stem the aggregate demand shock, easing investor fears and priming the pump of private sector growth? or is this hoped-for impact offset by pulling money away from more useful and efficient purposes and stoking concerns about future taxes and economic competitiveness, thus fueling rather than easing investor fears and inspiring hoarding rather than growth?

 

Well said.

[Ursa Majoris]

nobody has ever said that if you spend a trillion dollars it won't directly put some people to work. even if you just dumped it all in a giant hole and burned it, you'd have to hire a good number of people with shovels, wheelbarrows and flamethrowers to make that happen. the bigger question is, what impact does this spending have on the broader economy? does this spending stem the aggregate demand shock, easing investor fears and priming the pump of private sector growth? or is this hoped-for impact offset by pulling money away from more useful and efficient purposes and stoking concerns about future taxes and economic competitiveness, thus fueling rather than easing investor fears and inspiring hoarding rather than growth?

If the effects are that bad, shouldn't Ms Bachmann be even more vociferous in her opposition and that much more resistant to these projects that, taken all together, are destroying the American economy? Surely she would not want history to say she had a hand in such perfidy and nor would her loyal voter base, flagwavers true all of them?

 

Or is it just trotters in the trough for all and screw principle and the Tea Party?

[Azazello1313]

If the effects are that bad, shouldn't Ms Bachmann be even more vociferous in her opposition and that much more resistant to these projects that, taken all together, are destroying the American economy? Surely she would not want history to say she had a hand in such perfidy and nor would her loyal voter base, flagwavers true all of them?

 

while I applaud state and local polticians who stood on principle and said they didn't want stimulus funds, I might not feel the same way if I was in their district. there is really nothing slimy or inconsistent about arguing first, that a big borrowing-and-spending project should not be undertaken; but then after it's passed, trying to make sure your constituency gets its fair share of the spending. that is, unless there is some mechanism whereby you as a lawmaker can exempt your constituency from having to pay back it's share when the bill comes due. as it is, every state and every district is on the hook for paying back their share of the loan whether they like it or not.

 

[SEC=UGA]

while I applaud state and local polticians who stood on principle and said they didn't want stimulus funds, I might not feel the same way if I was in their district. there is really nothing slimy or inconsistent about arguing first, that a big borrowing-and-spending project should not be undertaken; but then after it's passed, trying to make sure your constituency gets its fair share of the spending. that is, unless there is some mechanism whereby you as a lawmaker can exempt your constituency from having to pay back it's share when the bill comes due. as it is, every state and every district is on the hook for paying back their share of the loan whether they like it or not.

 

 

Is it then perfectly fine for people to accept welfare, public housing/housing assistance or foodstamps? The money has been allocated, thus it is fine for them to not work and take full advantage of the public assistance

[Azazello1313]

Is it then perfectly fine for people to accept welfare, public housing/housing assistance or foodstamps? The money has been allocated, thus it is fine for them to not work and take full advantage of the public assistance

 

if they legitimately qualify for them, yeah. different scenario though, because those are hardship things. people may not think they need that assistance even if they qualify, and I applaud that. taking advantage in order to remain unproductive adds a whole other element to the equation. it's totally different when you're talking about doling out a bunch of largesse that everyone collectively has to pay for later on. in that scenario, I find the argument that people who disagreed with the policy in the first place should forego the largesse out of principle, while still remaining obligated to pay back their share, patently absurd. but still, In general I think people should accept what the law grants them, whether they agree with the policy or not. like the bush tax cuts....a lot of people disagreed with the decision to give those out, but I don't know of anyone who insisted on paying what they would have otherwise, and I don't see anything hypocritical about that either.

[SEC=UGA]

1 if they legitimately qualify for them, yeah. different scenario though, because those are hardship things. people may not think they need that assistance even if they qualify, and I applaud that. taking advantage in order to remain unproductive adds a whole other element to the equation. 2 it's totally different when you're talking about doling out a bunch of largesse that everyone collectively has to pay for later on. in that scenario, I find the argument that people who disagreed with the policy in the first place should forego the largesse out of principle, while still remaining obligated to pay back their share, patently absurd. but still, In general I think people should accept what the law grants them, whether they agree with the policy or not. like the bush tax cuts....a lot of people disagreed with the decision to give those out, but I don't know of anyone who insisted on paying what they would have otherwise, and I don't see anything hypocritical about that either.

 

For the sake of argument:

1. Weren't most of the funds of which we are speaking being doled out due to "hardship" on the state and local communities?

2. Are the social entitlement programs not largesse that everyone has to pay for later on?

[Azazello1313]

For the sake of argument:

1. Weren't most of the funds of which we are speaking being doled out due to "hardship" on the state and local communities?

2. Are the social entitlement programs not largesse that everyone has to pay for later on?

 

1. 18% (not "most") of the stimulus money went to "state and local fiscal relief". now if michelle bachman, or whomever, were arguing that their state needed a greater per capitata share of that relief, that to me is a slightly different scenario than arguing that they should receive their share of money doled out for highway improvements or something along those lines.

2. the entitlements are more social insurance than anything else. a safety net. in order to collect on that social insurance, you generally have to be in a position of hardship. when you talk, as you did in your hypothetical, about people purposefully taking advantage of that insurance by prolonging their "hardship", you're adding all sorts of moral elements into the equation that aren't there in the stimulus example. the whole point of the stimulus was to spend money (the very definition of largesse) to get the economy going. and I'm just saying that if you're forced to buy in to that plan, even if you don't think it's going to do what they hope, you ought to at least try to get your share of the candy that falls out of the pinata.

[SEC=UGA]

1. 18% (not "most") of the stimulus money went to "state and local fiscal relief". now if michelle bachman, or whomever, were arguing that their state needed a greater per capitata share of that relief, that to me is a slightly different scenario than arguing that they should receive their share of money doled out for highway improvements or something along those lines.

2. the entitlements are more social insurance than anything else. a safety net. in order to collect on that social insurance, you generally have to be in a position of hardship. when you talk, as you did in your hypothetical, about people purposefully taking advantage of that insurance by prolonging their "hardship", you're adding all sorts of moral elements into the equation that aren't there in the stimulus example. the whole point of the stimulus was to spend money (the very definition of largesse) to get the economy going. and I'm just saying that if you're forced to buy in to that plan, even if you don't think it's going to do what they hope, you ought to at least try to get your share of the candy that falls out of the pinata.

 

I haven't read your response. After I posted this I realized it was a bad argument and I am ashamed I posted it... So much for talking with the wife on the phone while posting, my apologies

[driveby]

The Obama administration is crediting its anti-recession stimulus plan with creating up to 50,000 jobs on dozens of wind farms, even though many of those wind farms were built before the stimulus money began to flow or even before President Barack Obama was inaugurated.

 

Most of the job gains are short term, study finds

 

Although the administration has described 50,000 new jobs, Rogers, when pressed, speaks of 40,000 to 50,000 jobs being created, saved or supported. He said these figures were provided by the American Wind Energy Association, an industry lobbying group. In February, for example, that group said, "Were it not for the Recovery Act, we estimated a loss of as much as 40,000 jobs."

 

The association, in turn, cites a study by the Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which estimated that the grant program supported more than 51,600 short-term jobs during the construction phase, the equivalent of that many people working full time for one year, and an additional 3,860 long-term full-time jobs. The study assumed that all the projects finished in the first half of 2009 were not caused by the stimulus. ( Read the study here.)

 

When the wind association and the Obama administration cite such figures as 50,000 jobs, however, they don't mention that the study found that most were short-term jobs.

 

When asked how to reconcile claims from the administration that the jobs associated with these projects were a result of the stimulus — even though the work was done months before the stimulus was passed — Rogers did not offer a direct response.

 

"I think it's the simplest thing. You can talk to the 40[,000] to 50,000 people who have been working on these projects since they were passed," he said, "and ask if they are pleased."

 

Since it gave out its first grants on Sept. 1, 2009, the renewable energy stimulus program has handed out more than $5 billion to more than 1,100 projects, many of them small solar-energy projects. The largest amount of money, $4.4 billion, has gone to big wind farms.

 

The Investigative Reporting Workshop previously reported that the majority of the money was going to foreign-owned developers, and that the majority of turbines being installed were built by foreign-owned manufacturers. ( Read those stories here.) The Treasury Department has rejected Freedom of Information requests by the Investigative Reporting Workshop seeking grant applications, citing trade secrets.

 

more of the same

[gbpfan1231]

more of the same

Does this article suggest that we gave stimulus money to companies for work that was already completed? It seems that way and it kinda seems that the one company that completed the last windmill on the last day to make them eligible for funds did so on purpose???

 

Am I reading this wrong? If not are we going to do anyhting to recoup the funds??

 

Can't wait for govt to control healthcare.

[Ursa Majoris]

more of the same

That's from MSNBC. You know, the administration shill.

[driveby]

That's from MSNBC. You know, the administration shill.

What's yer point?