RSS Feeds Feeds: Articles | Issues
Articles About TAP Subscribe Donate
TAPPED  |  Beat the Press

Remember Me
Forgot your password?

The symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.


 



The group blog of The American Prospect

NO POLITICS AT WORK IN THE STIMULUS.

stimuluslogo.jpg

Yesterday on Washington Journal I fumbled a bit when asked about this article from USA Today that suggests Barack Obama's administration is favoring counties that supported him in the 2008 election with federal stimulus funds. USA Today is not a paper I usually read before 9 a.m., or really at all, so my strained comments were about how more people voted for Obama in general and Democratic areas tend to have public officials who aren't desperately trying to reject federal aid. However, the central insinuation of the article -- captured in the prominent placement of this quote from WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: "There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery" -- remained unrefuted.

Actually reading the article shows it to be fairly self-refuting, but before I could write a post explaining why the report isn't very useful or important, Conor Clarke beat me to it:

And about that factual content: The Heath piece basically says (1) counties that voted for Obama get more money than counties that voted for McCain; (2) pretty much all of this money "has followed a well-worn path ... guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation." There is no theory presented for how the spending could have been manipulated.

The article concludes by noting that "From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau." Yikes! Either that completely destroys the premise of the article, or this pro-Obama conspiracy runs far deeper than even USA Today can imagine...

Makes sense to me.

-- Tim Fernholz



COMMENTS

"There was an election. We won."

Should have meaning. Any outrage at this is an extension of the different rules that applied when Harold Washington was elected Mayor of Chicago. If the Irish get a mayor they get lots of new jobs, if the Poles get a mayor, they get lots jobs, but if a black gets elected, he has to be 'even handed.'

Frankly, if there HAD been a shift of resources to the winners, that is acceptable. What do these people think they elect representatives for? Amusement?

thanks for sharing information with us....

___________________
Jessica
Get 28 movie channels for 3 months free

Post a comment


Search TAPPED for:

Archives

About TAPPED

TAPPED, the Prospect's award-winning group blog, is a link-intensive collection of musings, ramblings, opinions and other assorted writing on the political developments of the day. See a list of our contributors.

| RSS | Twitter


Renew your print subscription or e-subscription.
Get an e-subscription for $14.95.
Give the gift of political insight. Send The American Prospect to a friend.
Change your email address or street address.
YES! I want to receive The American Prospect
— the essential source for progressive ideas.
Explore The American Prospect's award-winning investigative journalism and provocative essays in a free trial issue. Continue receiving The American Prospect at only $19.95 for a one-year subscription - a savings of 60% off the newsstand price!
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP     
Email

Should you decide not to continue receiving the magazine after the initial free issue, simply write "cancel" on the invoice and you will not be billed.

© 2010 by The American Prospect, Inc.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Permissions and Reprints