Read the Stimulus
My friend Rob Neppell at Truth Laid Bear and Kithbridge has literally made a career out of building on-line tools to break down barriers between people and organizations, and he’s done it once again with Read the Stimulus. Rob has transformed the 1,588 pages of legislation and committee reports into a searchable website designed to shine a light on the Congressional porkfest. What had once been an inaccessible and forbidding mountain as daunting as Everest now becomes accessible to those motivated to find the pork, waste, and outright fraud in them thar hills.
Let’s see what an Army of Davids can do. Get your search fingers warmed up and see what ridiculous items you can find in this bloated attempt at nationalization.
It looks like the pet idea of spending hundreds of millions on contraceptives may be dead. Help kill other pork-filled nonsense. The page to go to is here. Find some stupid items Obama wants us to shell out millions for, and post them in the comments. If there are enough good ones, I’ll assemble them into a post.
Fight the worse parts. If you embarass the Democrats they will back down.
Joe (17aeff) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:45 amThis isn’t exactly spending. Here’s the definition of “nonambulatory disabled cattle”.
Sec. 104 (a) Hereafter, in this section, the term “nonambulatory disabled cattle” means cattle, other than cattle that are less than 5 months old or weigh less than 500 pounds, subject to inspection under section 3(b) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(b)) that cannot rise from a recumbent position or walk, including cattle with a broken appendage, severed tendon or ligament, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or a metabolic condition.
Wesson (3ab0b8) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:21 amFight the worse parts. If you embarass the Democrats they will back down.
Joe, we’re talking about a party that is fundamentally incapable of embarrassment, especially where spending money is involved.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:29 am[…] (Hat tip: Patterico.) […]
How Will They Be Spending Your Money? | Popehat (895595) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:34 amI don’t know how you can embarrass a Democrat. They have no shame. They’ll rationalize, instill fear, or take away your rights, but they wont be dissuaded.
Dan F (a67de7) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:13 amWow – this could enpower an out of control Sec of Labor to set wages for professions?
EricPWJohnson (852352) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:43 amHardly anyone wants to even look, seemingly.
So I went to the “Read the Stimulus” home page and entered the search term “families”. I got over 35 results, which are too many to list here. So I’ll give a summary for this search.
-energy assistance to low income families. (1 entry)
-child care assistance (1 entry)
-support for charter schools based on number of low income families. (2 entries)
-increase earned income tax credit for low income families (1 entry)
-tax relief for families with children.
-assistance for unemployed workers.
Practically all of the above mention until funding runs out.
OH, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! It just goes on and on, but, and I’m not a trained economist here, all of this is just giving people money which they will spend on goods and services. But what will they do when the money runs out?
“STIMULUS” – The keep using that word…I do not think it means what they think it means.
Jack (d9cbc5) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:44 amSo much for a fair trial or the rights of the people of Illinois
EricPWJohnson (852352) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:46 amIf nothing else, this bill will put to rest all the stupid “Obama is a Muslim” rumors.
fat tony (7558c8) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:47 amWhat is stimulus-y about this crap? This is nothing other than a huge pork barrel vehicle for Baracky/Pelosi/Reid to reward their interest groups.
Embarass them? Not possible.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:56 amSection 502 is also know as free housing its a little known program usually reserved for political cronies
now its expanded into the billions
Section 502 is designed for people with avg credit – but insufficient income or down payment to get a “special” loan to buy a house they never ever could have afforded
EricPWJohnson (852352) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:01 amI’ll post here what I just e-mailed to family:
Well, I’m feeling ‘stimulated’.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pV-c6t5fOVmNorqMpHvnCMw
Digital to Analog Box Converter Program $ 650,000,000
Habitat Restoration and Migration Activities $ 400,000,000
Deeper Climate Tracking and Model Capabilities $ 600,000,000
Science (In Notes, its says the following is for climate modeling)$ 250,000,000
Indian Health Facilities $ 550,000,000
National Endowment of the Arts $ 50,000,000
This off-hand look among what are horrificly vague descriptions of hundreds of millions of dollars being pissed away comes to a total of $ 2,500,000,000. Two and a half T-R-I-L-L-I-O-N dollars!
If you need me, I’m going to be in a fetal position in the corner, rocking back and forth while crying.
Joeboy (a8060f) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:21 amAnd I’ll be honest, I just looked for items that stuck out like a pimple on a prom queen’s forehead. I was very conservative on what I put on the list, and even then, that is what I came up with. They have whole areas where money is appropriated with NO designation on why or for what with the expection of what department it is assigned towards.
Joeboy (a8060f) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:22 amComment by EricPWJohnson — 1/27/2009 @ 9:43 am
This is just making sure that whatever is spent, wages are in compliance with Davis-Bacon, which essentially requires all projects to pay union scale, and has been law since FDR. It raises the labor costs of all Federally funded projects by a minimum of 10%, often more.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:28 amGotta love it, Joeboy — $850,000,000 for junk science!
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:43 amAD, Davis-Bacon also operates indirectly to exclude minority labor from such projects.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:48 amI wonder if Reich has ever been asked about Davis-Bacon?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:51 amOnly an unrepentant racist would point out the unintended consequences of bad legislation, SPQR.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:51 amAre midgets a protected minority?
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:53 amI am familiar with the background reasons for the passage of Davis-Bacon.
It is bad legislation handed down to us by our Democrat Party bettors.
Oh-Bam-Ah,
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:08 amLeader of the New Ah-Mer-Ee-Kee,
President for Life!
Comment by JD — 1/27/2009 @ 10:53 am
Only physical midgets, not mental-midgets such as Reich.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:10 amThis is just making sure that whatever is spent, wages are in compliance with Davis-Bacon, which essentially requires all projects to pay union scale, and has been law since FDR. It raises the labor costs of all Federally funded projects by a minimum of 10%, often more.
Comment by AD
Davis-Bacon was enacted in the Depression to prevent blacks from moving north and taking lower paying jobs in construction. I wonder if Obama knows the story.
Mike K (ee3203) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:12 amTEST
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:49 amGreat … here comes a tsunami of inanity.
JD (a1ce2d) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:56 amOnly if you join me for lunch JD 🙂
Otherwise, you are going to have to revel in your own insanity.
Oiram (983921) — 1/27/2009 @ 12:00 pmShorter right wing: More Bristol Palins, please!
tamizdat (e8f5ce) — 1/27/2009 @ 12:17 pmLonger tamizdat: Because even with the sex ed we already have in place, we can’t prevent teen pregnancy without giving more federal money to Planned Parenthood!
AKA Pablo (99243e) — 1/27/2009 @ 12:28 pmBoehner’s office has a good top 20 facts about the stimulus. Boehner’s Top 20
The opposition has to keep ridiculing this stimulus until it fails. OW we just delay the inevitable Dem takeover.
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/27/2009 @ 1:00 pmFAIL
kaf (16e0b5) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:09 pmtamizdat – Do you think that propping up the contraceptive market is a good way to spend the “stimulus” money? Why do you hate Gov. Palin?
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:09 pm“It looks like the pet idea of spending hundreds of millions on contraceptives may be dead. Help kill other pork-filled nonsense.”
Bizarre. Do you have something against birth control and prenatal care?
“Under the provision, states would no longer have to seek permission from the federal government to provide family planning services — including contraceptives — ”
–“More than anything, her comments underscore the shortsightedness of these liberal policies,” the FRC said in a news release. “If Pelosi and her Congress continue to deemphasize the family, America will travel even farther down the deadly path of our European friends,” whose birth rate is plunging.”-
So support for the family is contempt for “The Family.”
sleepy (09c352) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:14 pmAnd helping the states cover costs is bad.
Yeah man! Keep all those deadbeat American people from gettin’ any of that stimulus (bailout) money! The people who actually count already got theirs so screw everyone else.
Besides if the Dems spend it all now, when Sarah Palin is Prez in 2012 how is she gonna be able to borrow a few trillion more to keep up the good ol conservative borrow and spend policies that everyone has gotten so used to?
Hey what happened to all the “our economy is huge and we can afford to borrow tons of money and run up huge deficits to pay for tax breaks for businesses” people? Oh yeah… different set of cronies getting some of the dough now huh?
EdWood (c2268a) — 1/27/2009 @ 2:39 pmOf note is the funds that will go to ACORN. The first $700B stimulus plan, which would’ve pumped millions into ACORN, died. The second $700B stimulus plan, which should’ve died, did not have money for ACORN. This $825B stimulus plan again will fund ACORN, that corrupt voter-fraud organization.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:07 pmNot at all. I do have something against being forced to pay for someone else to receive them. And since I’m not a high-ranking Democrat, if I failed to pay my taxes, I’d be facing huge penalties, interest — maybe even jail time. Hardly seems fair to force me to work for the benefit of someone else.
What the hell are you talking about? Personally I thought the bailout was crap, and as it’s developed, well, it appears that the folks getting the cash (“the people who actually count”) turn out to be those closely tied to Democrat lawmakers! Huh — government corruption? From the party of “Cold Cash” Jefferson, Charles Rangle, Blagojevich, and Obama?!
The last round of tax cuts increased government revenue. Had Congress — and, yes, I’m blaming the Republican-controlled Congress as well as the Democrat-controlled one — kept a handle on spending, we’d be in a hell of a lot better shape. Deficits don’t come from reducing taxes; they come from spending more than you bring in.
And do you realize that every damned penny of this “stimulus” is debt? So why isn’t a heftier portion of it coming from tax cuts? You know, letting working people keep the money they work for?
Are you defending this spending because you think it’s a good idea or because of the people voicing opposition to it? If it’s the latter, you might want to but a little more effort into thinking about it.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:07 pmSo a tax cut which runs up bigger deficits is BAD, but jacking up transfer payments and running up bigger deficits is GOOD.
What is good is bad and vice versa.
Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:11 pmRob Crawford – Well said.
JD (b5ad03) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:16 pmHouse Democrats 1/15/09 Bill Text, Page 184:
con-gma (ef8187) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:29 pm… , renovation, and repair, including those related to student academic achievement and student and staff health, energy efficiency, and environmental protection. (n) YOUTHBUILD PROGRAMS.—The Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall work with recipients of funds under this section to promote appropriate opportunities for participants in a YouthBuild program (as .WHAT IS YOUTHBUILD???????????
House Democrats 1/15/09 Bill Text, Page 173:
con-gma (ef8187) — 1/27/2009 @ 3:37 pm… The term ‘‘Energy Star’’ means the Energy Star program of the United States Department of Energy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (9) The term ‘‘CHPS Criteria’’ means the green building rating program developed by the Collaborative for High Performance Schools. (10) The term ‘‘Green Globes’’ means the Green Building Initiative environmental design and rating system referred ..
LOTS of GREEN STIPULATUONS_
Additionally, go sign the petition to support the plan that is described here, to show that there are alternatives out there to this illusive stimulus freight-train.
We don’t have to accept this egregious waste of money lying down.
DaveS (a0e80f) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:20 pmThat suggests that states have to get permission from the federal government to provide family planning services. They don’t.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:27 pm“AD, Davis-Bacon also operates indirectly to exclude minority labor from such projects.”
How does it do that?
imdw (66c306) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:29 pm“That suggests that states have to get permission from the federal government to provide family planning services. They don’t.”
I believe they do in order to use the medicaid money.
imdw (ae4236) — 1/27/2009 @ 4:33 pmYeah, and you need to get your daddy’s permission to buy a car…with his money. Aside from that, not so much.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/27/2009 @ 5:11 pmI’d like to think that even Obama’s biggest supporters are embarrassed by some of the pork and are grateful towards the people who are looking out for their tax dollars. Obama likely has no idea what some of the seedier fools in his own party are up… to burying millions to billions in the fine print.
And thank God the GOP got rid of Ted Stevens before this or we’d paying the Eskimo’s not to grow ice, but something tells me the GOP will not let his legacy die.
There is nothing wrong with gutting this bill and insisting things get reworked again and again for a few more months… like in every budget crisis around my own home, you never know how little you really need until you actually give it a try.
SteveG (a87dae) — 1/27/2009 @ 5:52 pmAnd nothing is more patriotic than trying right?
Yeah, I’d like to think that, too. The evidence is pretty much the opposite, though.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/27/2009 @ 6:00 pmDavid Berntein explains it
Steverino (b12c49) — 1/27/2009 @ 6:10 pmComment by imdw — 1/27/2009 @ 4:29 pm
Davis-Bacon was devised to insure that WPA (and other, later works) projects would only employ union labor.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 6:54 pmAt the time (and continuing to the post-Civil Rights Act period) AFL and CIO (they were separate organizations at the time) unions were very difficult for minority workers to join; therefore, Davis-Bacon insured that these projects employed only nice, white guys represented by clean-cut union organizers who would never have their hands sullied by accepting dues from …..(fill in your favorite racial disparity here).
You can thank the Meany’s, the Reuther’s, et al, for this abomination.
No! And I have nothing against food and clothing. Or cars. I have nothing against a good Pinot Noir with my lamb chops. Does that mean the guvmint (that means you, soldier) should pay for all these things?
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:08 pmWell, if you “date” the government, it should pay.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:14 pm#49
Hrmmm, mebbe I should lower my standards and start courting Babs. Ceptin I’ma wantin her ta lose her re-election bid in Caulifo’nya.
John Hitchcock (e29707) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:26 pm“Davis-Bacon was devised to insure that WPA (and other, later works) projects would only employ union labor.”
Union labor, or at union wages?
Its no longer about excluding minorities, right? And if it is, then we better take robert reich’s advice.
imdw (23c2b4) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:29 pmWhat I find interesting about unions, and I was in one until just recently, is the fact a portion of each member’s dues is spent on political campaigns. These unions always, ALWAYS, campaign for Democrats. And, while there were many failed attempts to allow union members to opt out of that portion of their dues going to political campaigns, there is nothing a union member can do to stop the union from using his money to support reprehensible political candidates.
John Hitchcock (e29707) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:33 pmIt may or may not be, but the effect is to chase out competitively-priced labor. Plus, it raises the bar for entry into that labor market.
Seriously, why would you want to be forced into paying $20/hr for something that you could get for $10/hr?
Steverino (b12c49) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:42 pm“These unions always, ALWAYS, campaign for Democrats. And, while there were many failed attempts to allow union members to opt out of that portion of their dues going to political campaigns, there is nothing a union member can do to stop the union from using his money to support reprehensible political candidates.”
The union member could leave the union. Just like an AARP member can leave, or an employee can leave if he feels like his efforts are being used improperly. However, I don’t find it too surprising that union dues are used to increase unionism and union compensation. I mean, does that union member object to other uses of union dues, like organizing, or representing people accused of sexual harassment, or a grievance filed by someone they don’t like.
imdw (603c39) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:49 pmSteverino
Plus its an unprecedented government control over the construction industry – something that the unions have been fighting back and forth over since the 20’s
EricPWJohnson (852352) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:49 pm“It may or may not be, but the effect is to chase out competitively-priced labor. Plus, it raises the bar for entry into that labor market.”
Keeping wages up raises the bar for entry for labor? Seriously?
“Seriously, why would you want to be forced into paying $20/hr for something that you could get for $10/hr?”
We’re talking about government money right? So the people paying 20 or 10 an hour aren’t using their own money. This reflects that agency cost, and makes sure that the government money doesn’t put a downward pressure on wages.
imdw (603c39) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:52 pmComment by imdw — 1/27/2009 @ 7:29 pm
Don’t act like a troll.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:52 pmDavis-Bacon was to ensure that projects only used Union Labor….Union WHITE Labor…since minorities were not allowed to join unions.
If you don’t wish to accept that, too bad.
Look up the history of the Davis-Bacon Act, and the lengths the AFL, and CIO, went to restrict the entry of minorities to unions.
Today, it means union labor and rates because that is the manner that the “prevailing wage” clause has been, and is, interpreted.
Imdw, when you work in a state that has union-friendly laws, you cannot necessarily “just leave” the union. The job I had for nearly 9 years was a job in a union shop. To be employed by that company, I had to be in the union. To leave the union, I had to give up my job with that company.
This is another aspect of unions in many states: Companies can be forced to stop employing people that are tossed from the union or otherwise choose not to be part of the union.
John Hitchcock (e29707) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:53 pmIt isn’t government money, imdw, it is OPM. It is my money going places I don’t want because government is willing to pay $20 for something that should cost $10.
John Hitchcock (e29707) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:56 pmComment by imdw — 1/27/2009 @ 7:49 pm
Are you some kind of stupid?
Comparing union membership to being a member of the AARP?
FYI, in a union shop state, if you don’t belong to the union, and the company you wish to work for has a union contract, you DON’T work…It is as simple as that.
Boy, I’ve really suffered since I refused to join the AARP. Why, I’ve had to pay the full senior discount for my hamburgers at Arby’s.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 7:56 pmWTF? You’re right that they’re not using their own money — they’re using taxpayer money. They have a responsibility to use it efficiently, and over-paying is decidedly not using it efficiently.
And the government is no different than any other employer when it comes to competing for labor; they should pay the market rate, rather than collude with unions to funnel taxpayer money through union coffers into Democrat campaign chests.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:02 pm“Davis-Bacon was to ensure that projects only used Union Labor”
The wikipedia description doesn’t mention a requirement that the workers be in a union, but it does mention prevailing wages and local workers. Its probably meant to keep employers from importing workers, specially union busting workers. I’m sure it has a race angle, as blacks, being poorer, were quite useful as union-busters and to lower wages. Quite useful for a contractor to bring in low wage workers to a high wage area, and disrupt that labor market. All with government money too!
I don’t know how race conscious the bill’s republican sponsors, Davis and Bacon were. I’d be nice to see a copy of the original law.
“Today, it means union labor and rates because that is the manner that the “prevailing wage” clause has been, and is, interpreted.”
So its not a racial problem anymore. Great!
imdw (688568) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:08 pm“They have a responsibility to use it efficiently, and over-paying is decidedly not using it efficiently.”
If they’re paying a prevailing wage then its not over or underpaying. If someone’s got a way to go into the business paying less than the government, they should.
imdw (688568) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:11 pmSo its not a racial problem anymore. Great!
Except, in the construction trades today, there is a preponderance of Hispanic workers (at least here in SoCal, and throughout the SW). They predominately work for non-union contractors. If projects specify D-B standards, their employers don’t even bid, for they know they’ll not be awarded any part of the project.
So, Davis-Bacon is a means to restrict the availability of work to non-union (Hispanic) workers, and to ensure wages for union workers who will be able to pay into the union’s coffers for political action.
In many cases, members are assessed a fixed amount that they must contribute to maintain their “good standing” in the union – see what the CA – NEA teacher’s union did to raise funds to fight Arnie’s special election a couple years back.
Davis-Bacon does nothing to contribute to the building of infrastructure, or anything else, except the filling of union coffers.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:20 pmimdw ≈ convolution
John Hitchcock (e29707) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:20 pm“…If they’re paying a prevailing wage…”
No, you’re being obtuse.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:22 pm“Prevailing Wage” is interpreted as the prevailing, union wage; and completely discounts the wage scale of non-union firms, who are not deemed to be qualified to bid on these contracts.
If they could get the work done more cheaply, they’re over-paying.
What are you trying to say with that sentence? It sounds like you’re making a statement in favor of wage competition, but that’s utterly inconsistent with your general argument in support of Davis-Bacon.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:24 pmComment by Rob Crawford — 1/27/2009 @ 8:24 pm
Of course, what would you expect from someone who mimics a troll?
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:27 pmEither that, or imdw is completely incapable of making a coherent argument, and absorbing facts and history to reinforce those arguments.
Union coffers which, conveniently, are used to fill up Democrat politician campaign funds.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:27 pm““Prevailing Wage” is interpreted as the prevailing, union wage; ”
I tried looking for the law, but I couldn’t find it. The description i found at wikipedia didn’t say this. If you had a cite for this, that would be peachy. Though I do expect that in places where unions prevail, prevailing wages are going to be the union wage — because they prevail.
“Union coffers which, conveniently, are used to fill up Democrat politician campaign funds.”
And its a republican law too. How fun.
“Davis-Bacon does nothing to contribute to the building of infrastructure, or anything else, except the filling of union coffers.”
It doesn’t even do what Davis and Bacon wanted to do? Keep government money to be used to disrupt local labor markets?
imdw (d6bc5c) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:32 pm“What are you trying to say with that sentence? It sounds like you’re making a statement in favor of wage competition, but that’s utterly inconsistent with your general argument in support of Davis-Bacon.”
Yes keep the wage competition in the private sector, and have government money not distort that.
imdw (d6bc5c) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:34 pmI definitely wouldn’t go to Arby’s for a hamburger… or maybe I should go thru their drive-thru and order a hamburger. Kinda like going thru Mickey Dee’s drive-thru and ordering a Frosty. 😉
John Hitchcock (e29707) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:35 pmimdw, stop saying “government money.” Government does not have any money; it spends the taxpayers’ money. It is MY money you are so cavalierly throwing around and you need to cease and desist.
John Hitchcock (e29707) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:36 pm…more Davis-Bacon…from The Heritage Foundation…
“In most cities, Davis-Bacon wages bear no resemblance to prevailing market wages. In some cities, Davis-Bacon rates are more than double market wages. In other cities, Davis-Bacon rates are below the minimum wage.”
…note also the clip on how this was intended to prevent the Fed Govt from driving down the prevailing wage due to its’ influence and power in the letting of construction contracts.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:38 pm“…note also the clip on how this was intended to prevent the Fed Govt from driving down the prevailing wage due to its’ influence and power in the letting of construction contracts.”
I saw that.
Interestingly, Cato foundation talks about the race origins of the law, but the heritage foundation chooses to describe it like I do:
“The act was intended to prevent the purchasing power of the federal government from driving down construction wages during the Great Depression.”
And to piss off John, Heritage even calls it the ‘government’s purchasing power.
imdw (d98d80) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:46 pmHow does the government mandating higher-than-market wages not distort the labor market? If I’m running a non-union firm paying $8 an hour and have no problems finding people willing to work for that wage, and the government opens a contract that requires I pay $10 an hour before I’m even allowed to bid for the job, isn’t that a distortion?
Davis-Bacon is intended to be market distorting, in order to reduce the ability of less-skilled workers or workers from lower-cost-of-living areas from competing with union shops.
I’m sure Davis and Bacon got lots of union support at the time. That doesn’t mean the law was a good idea, or that it’s still a good idea, or that it isn’t contributing to corruption now.
Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:46 pmHasn’t everyone seen enough of omdw’s commenting style at this point to understand that expecting her to make sense is as likely as expecting original thought out of Obama.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:46 pmimdw’s
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:47 pmPlus, it is obvious that this troll does not wish to acknowledge that 1931 was a completely different universe – politically.
AD (db1953) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:50 pmObviously, historically challenged.
“Davis-Bacon is intended to be market distorting”
Its intended to pay a prevailing wage. AD says it don’t do that anymore. That’s not Davis and Bacon’s fault.
imdw (d98d80) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:53 pmJuno, imdw’s mother, was doing lots of wrong things while pregnant and imdw was born without junk. 😛
John Hitchcock (e29707) — 1/27/2009 @ 8:55 pm“Juno, imdw’s mother, was doing lots of wrong things while pregnant and imdw was born without junk”
Thanks for the policy discussion y’all.
imdw (f30eb8) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:01 pmYou’re welcome, Imdw McGuff.
John Hitchcock (e29707) — 1/27/2009 @ 9:03 pmYes, John, the dues money goes to Dems. When we filed suit against CSEA we found out in discovery that $32 out of $40 of our monthly dues went to the PAC, and all of that went to either bigger unions (for effective laundering) or to Dem PACs. Exactly $8 went to member services.
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/27/2009 @ 10:03 pm#34 Nobody knows if spending all that money is going to work or not work.
I’m with you on the original bailout. I was agin’ it.
Yep my comment was (mostly) directed at the group of people who went spendy apeshit for 8 years and now suddenly want to conserve and balance budgets and all sorts of crap that they weren’t really all that interested in when they were running things. I have no illusions whatsoever that the Dems will be any better and I guarantee you that there are plenty of Reps at the current 1 trillion dollar trough. The Reps who have the most right to criticize are the ones who voted against the original bailout, BOTH times. They are at least sticking to their principles in that regard so they are the real “respectful opposition”.
EdWood (f6d08c) — 1/27/2009 @ 11:51 pmHaw Haw we ain’t seen nothin yet!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/us-aviation-public-transi_n_161551.html
2 trillion!
Just don’t give ANY of it to the city of Birmingham
http://bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Jefferson_County_sewer_construction_scandal
Major house to clean all over the country. When can we bring back tar and feathers?
Can we charge people a percentage of their assets in lieu of jail time?
EdWood (c2268a) — 1/28/2009 @ 7:36 amSacramento Bee is reporting that ~$14 billion of the stimulus will be used for California’s $40 billion budget gap. This takes the form of, “$14 billion in direct budget relief for education and Medi-Cal”.
There are so many things wrong with this.
Wesson (3ab0b8) — 1/28/2009 @ 8:42 am“The union member could leave the union. Just like an AARP member can leave…”
Not always true. I opted out of AARP, a corrupt shill for making money as there ever was, but I’m still a member of the union. I could opt out of the union, but the dues go to some ‘deserving organization’, which I don’t get to pick. Better the devil you know, etc.
Andy (b63f79) — 1/28/2009 @ 3:11 pmThe point of all this nonsense is that the ONLY way to “stimulate” the economy is to put more money back into the pockets of those who’ve earned it by their labor so they can decide what to do with it and how to spend it…period. All this garbage “stimulates” is Democrat registrations…which is the real point. Democrats are buying votes with OUR hard-earned dollars and without our permission.
Pappadave (3d5ba2) — 1/28/2009 @ 10:26 pmHmm..you folks are all concerned about spending by the Dems. WHERE THE HELL HAVE ALL OF YOU BEEN FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS WHEN WE WENT FROM A BALANCED BUDGET TO TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF SPENDING AND DEFICITS AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE. At least now we will spending in America on infrastructure and American jobs as OPPOSED to money going overseas or in the pockets of the corrupt CEO’s you seem to support. Is that really what you’re upset about? The CEO’s won’t get their millions in bonuses and options?
SammyB (db1104) — 2/8/2009 @ 11:06 am10 day delay in commenting on a post – check
carlitos (bb4a62) — 2/8/2009 @ 11:16 amlinked blindly from some lefty blog, not knowing any context or politics of this site – check
one total comment on this site ever – check
liberal talking points – check
ALL CAPS – check
Or, carlitos, it is a “regular” troll under a socketpuppet name…
Eric Blair (1aa50b) — 2/8/2009 @ 11:24 am