 |
| He's Got It |
Not one to let "a serious crisis to go to waste," Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the onset of the Great Depression as an excuse to immediately begin delivering New Deal dollars in unprecedented amounts - with laser-like political precision to electorally important parts of the country. He sailed to landslide reelection in 1936 on a federally-funded tailwind.
The New Deal is now an old one - as direct mail guru Richard Viguerie describes it, "We've got money, you've got votes, let's talk." If this is what Time had in mind for Obama to learn, he has proven to be an apt pupil.
And USA Today seems to have picked up on it.
We at the Media Research Center always love to give journalistic credit when and where it is due. And the USA Today today deserves serious credit for Brad Heath's look into how:
"Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election."
That quote is in fact the first sentence of the article. No burying the lede or mincing of words here.
A little later, Mr. Heath offers:
"Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows.
"... The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34."
And it seems that voting Democrat - not just voting for Obama - pays off handsomely when it comes to tapping into the tax dollar spigot.
"The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. 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."
 |
| So Do They |
There is a bit of a labeling issue for Mr. Heath and Company when it comes to source citation, or lack thereof.
"Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. 'Even if they wanted to, I don't think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that,' he says."
We are not informed by Mr. Heath that OMB Watch is a left-wing organization, according to the right-wing (we here at NewsBusters I.D.) Capital Research Center, whose job it is to track left-wing organizations.
Which may help explain the absurd assertion that "the imbalance is so pronounced... that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering." Wouldn't "political tinkering" actually go a long way towards explaining the pronounced imbalance in how the money has thus far been disbursed? It's hardly "inconceivable" to think so. They would have done well to have let us know the leanings of Mr. Hughes and OMB Watch.
That being said, the USA Today and Mr. Heath deserve hosannas for delivering these goods to their audience. A moment of journalistic clarity in an otherwise foggy media world.
—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center and Contributing Editor for NewsBusters.org.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Seton
July 9, 2009 - 14:39 ET by ricklailI am 2 for 2 today beating you guys to the punch. I posted the story about Ginsberg on the open thread and a little later this story.
I have to admit that on my home from a doctor's appointment, I heard about them from Laura Ingrahm. (Glenn Beck was on vac so I was listening to Laura.)
Semper suprene nitens
"We at the Media Research
July 9, 2009 - 14:39 ET by mattm"We at the Media Research Center always love to give journalistic credit when and where it is due." A job like that would be pretty close to a paid vacation....
Seriously though, this is utterly expected. It is the m.o. of the Demogogic Party. They get everyone addicted to government, punish those who won't play along, destroy or severly restrict the free market, and then set themselves up as the benevolent despots to whom everyone can go for help.
It's a slick racket.
dbbl post
July 9, 2009 - 15:58 ET by mattmaccidents will happen
if Obama were a repub, the SCM would be calling for his head
July 9, 2009 - 14:56 ET by R D Helm-Dave
"Obama's health care 'reform' plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof." - Herman Cain
...but not because they
July 9, 2009 - 15:55 ET by mattm...but not because they want the economy to be good. They would call for the republicans head because they seek to destroy anyone who keeps them from total power.
They don't even need a fact to go by. If the economy is good, the foreign policy is a disaster, if neither of those is bad, then it's somethng else, if there is nothing else, then there's a scandal, or the president is a doddering old fool who's out of touch, blah blah blah.
Reality doesn't matter to the left - if it gets in their way they simply invent their own version of it.
kudos and dittos
July 9, 2009 - 14:56 ET by XJ.JonTo Mr. Heath for actually reporting, mostly.
I'm mad as Hell, and I'm NOT going to take it anymore!
Further proof that when an electorate can vote for more $$$
July 9, 2009 - 15:01 ET by Cape Conservativefor themselves, they will!!!!! And they couldn't care less that they are robbing other Americans in their unquenchable thirst for MORE! The term 'Fiscal Responsibility' is something the majority of voters is unfamiliar with!
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise designated by Homeland Security as a Right Wing Radical Extremist! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
exactly cape
July 9, 2009 - 15:09 ET by candanceSome genius called into Rush's show today, pushing for cap and tax, and of course he spouted the predictable line that America is wealthy enough to pay for it.
The host went off. 10% unemployment, GM closing factories, the government in debt by trillions, and still these people think they can just walk up to Bill Gates with their hands out.
cd,
July 9, 2009 - 19:59 ET by R D Helm"...America is wealthy enough to pay for it."
At the rate Obama is destroying wealth in this nation, it won't be for very long.
-Dave
"Obama's health care 'reform' plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof." - Herman Cain
liberals love FDR
July 9, 2009 - 15:03 ET by candanceI happened to catch NPR in my car a little this morning. They had some expert who said FDR's policies were working great until a mini-crash in 37 messed it all up. The host then asked about Obama's policies today and whether all the spending would cause inflation. This guy seriously said that right now we have to stop deflation and then worry about inflation in another 10 years.
Our country is seriously in trouble.
Words Have No Meaning Anymore
July 9, 2009 - 15:17 ET by GothampcWe have to think about orange right now and indigo 10 years from now.
We have to think about hair right now and toenails 10 years from now.
We can blab on all day and talk nonsense and people will believe us.
If all things were equal
July 10, 2009 - 08:55 ET by dscottIf all things were equal you would be correct to be concerned on inflation caused by the printing of money. However, all things are not equal since over $3.6 trillion in wealth was destroyed in the private sector since last year. I submit the Fed can print $3.6 trillion with zero inflation because they are only replacing that which was destroyed. The Dems are operating under that theory and it will only be inflationary IF the economy is allowed to recover to the point where it stood before. The Dems have no intention of allowing the economy to get that far, that's why they are prepared to load up government spending and taxation under the guise of cap and trade and healthcare reform. It's all a very cleverly devised wealth redistribution plan.
Yes, our country is in serious trouble, but from a more devious and insidious direction than you think. The fear of hyperinflation will be the means in which liberals will discredit the conservatives because as long as the economy is in the dumps they can claim conservatives don't know what they are talking about... Even I warned against hyperinflation, but then I like most conservatives were focusing on the "long term" not the "short term" where liberals are operating.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
No, no, it's working! Really!
July 9, 2009 - 15:12 ET by DoktorFrankenI saw a brand new big sign (must have put the sign maker to work for at least an hour) on the side of the road where they were resurfacing (you know, the thing the states do all of the time using gas tax monies) and it said that this half mile of road was being glorified using the US Stimulus and Restructuring Money thanks to OFL Hussein. ('Our Fearless Leader' - or whatever F word you'd like to use.)
True story.
In case you're wondering
July 9, 2009 - 15:18 ET by DoktorFrankenIt was on 75th Street just west of route 53 in Naperville, IL.
Now there's a sign that's
July 9, 2009 - 18:11 ET by Kat Outta the BagNow there's a sign that's just begging to be riddled with bullet holes.
ACORN?
July 9, 2009 - 15:14 ET by GothampcI wish a serious journalist would research a bit more. Were the largest amounts of money awarded to places that had strong ties to ACORN?
Re ACORN
July 9, 2009 - 17:48 ET by slickwillie2001No worries, Barney Fwank is planning to take care of his ACORN Crime Syndicate buddies:
Barney Frank Wants to Spend TARP 'Profits' on ACORN... : http://sayanythingblog.com
"Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has come up with a proposal to spend any TARP profits before they can be returned to the taxpayers. Last Friday, Frank introduced the 'TARP for Main Street Act of 2009,' a bill that would take profits from the program and immediately redirect them toward housing proposals favored by Frank and some fellow Democrats."
Forget that TARP money, it's history. Once it's out of the Treasury, Congress will spend it on whatever they want.
No Surprise
July 9, 2009 - 15:21 ET by DirjjThis really should have come as no surprise. For decades, the Dems have been buying their votes. Look who votes for them. Welfare folks. Students. Unions. Social misfits, etc. . .
I once said that if you ban folks on Welfare or otherwise reliant on Gov for money ( excluding retirees ) from voting, that the Dems couldn't win an election.
ab
What a WONDERFUL suggestion, Dirjj!!!
July 9, 2009 - 18:12 ET by Cape ConservativePerhaps the next time we have a Republican-led Congress, some election reform can be instituted!!! Banning those on the dole from voting would be a VERY GOOD start for reform! Why, who knows, it just might encourage someone to GO TO WORK! Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Welfare to Work program???
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise designated by Homeland Security as a Right Wing Radical Extremist! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
→ Oh gosh!
July 9, 2009 - 15:42 ET by Cool ArrowIn other words, It would be impossible to direct funds to the money-grubbing Sardine States.
Not a chance demographic data is available on voting patterns.
This must be some cruel coincidence played on the Flyover States.
"Flyover States", that's a new term I just made up to describe States you "fly over" to get from the Northeast to the Left Coast.
You believe me, don't you? About me coining "Flyover States"?
Hmmmm CA - Flyover States = REAL Americans - Right?!?
July 9, 2009 - 18:14 ET by Cape ConservativeYou are soooo original in your coinage ;-)
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise designated by Homeland Security as a Right Wing Radical Extremist! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
Goodbye Mr Heath and USA
July 9, 2009 - 15:44 ET by memcThey were supposed to take the $69, keep quiet and agree with everything Obama by bending the truth. For this oversight, the next report must have the appropriate amount of praising for Obama. (But if this belief takes root then they will be excoriated.)
Still Raising Kids on that Sweet Lie?
July 9, 2009 - 16:09 ET by someloudthunderAre we still raising children to believe the lie that FDR fixed everything by ignoring Keynesian economics and increasing spending along with increasing taxes? I'm no fan of Keynesian but I understand how that works and I also understand that's the theory most modern economists subscribe to.
In my college career all I've ever heard from my economics professors was that FDR did not fix the great depression and that some of his policies actually exacerbated the problem.
Don't believe the myth that he "reduced" unemployment. Those "statistics" that say he reduced unemployment by the end of the 30s ignores the millions of laid-off government workers who so conveniently exempt those laid-off government workers. If you look at averages. FDR's years where he "saved" us from the depression had higher rates of unemployment compared to Hoover, and he faced the brunt of flak for it. Another "great" FDR move was discrediting Hoover at any cost. Huh.... seems like history repeats itself?
I'll second that
July 9, 2009 - 17:25 ET by KC MulvilleThat's evidence. We thank Mr. Heath.
We've been waiting for the media to deliver this kind of evidence, because it makes the case against this "economic program." This is why we're against it. It's not a serious economic plan, it's a political plan disguised as economics.
Now they're claiming that they need more of it, a second round of stimulus, because the first round wasn't enough. Well, of course it wasn't, because the money was never actually intended to stimulate anything. And the hard part is that they're asking the same people who politically misspent the first trillion.
No way! Sorry, that slipped out.
Thankfully, our neighbors to the north are 'getting it' - check
July 9, 2009 - 18:20 ET by Cape Conservativeout The Canadian Press, Daniel Greenberg's June 11, 2009 column. "...a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur..." is just a small portion of a very insightful article!
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise designated by Homeland Security as a Right Wing Radical Extremist! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
Hello, were we not yelling
July 9, 2009 - 18:37 ET by kangarooHello, were we not yelling don't do the stimulas. When they did, didn't we yell it was a payback to Obammas people that got him elected, and it wouldn't do jack sheeet.
So 6 months later they are finally figuring it out!!! Proof was there long ago, what took you so long to admit what the citizen right already knew. Guess they are finally smelling the coffee, but they still made themselves look like idiots
Newsbusters left something out...
July 9, 2009 - 19:34 ET by Jen7That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-08-redblue_N.htm
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
Family Guy
Jen 7 left something out
July 9, 2009 - 21:09 ET by RESTLESS 1"The stimulus package Obama signed in February
includes about $499 billion in new spending, and to date, the Obama
administration has allocated about $158 billion to specific projects
and programs. Most of that money has gone directly to state
governments, which then disperse the money to prevent school layoffs,
repair roads and fund social services. That contrasts with the $17
billion that Washington distributes directly to local communities.
Including the larger chunk of money given to
state governments, the aid favors states that voted for Obama, which
have received about 20% more per person"
BTW Jen, Bush's tax rebate stimulus had put $80 billion directly into the hands of the people in the amount of time it has taken the 0's ill gotten booty to roll out, with only $17 billion getting to the local level.
It's been awhile Jen. I see you have learned nothing during your absence. Come back when you can't stay as long. 8>)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Read it again, Restless
July 10, 2009 - 14:08 ET by Jen7Restless says--It's been awhile Jen. I see you have learned nothing during your absence. Come back when you can't stay as long. 8>)
Comprehend what the statement says. That this is a formula that was put in place LONG before Obama. So, to blame this on Obama is dishonest...in fact...it's a LIE.
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
Family Guy
Jen, like I said
July 11, 2009 - 19:00 ET by RESTLESS 1You have become no smarter in you absence.
How many stimulus plans have there been, much less $787 billion dollar ones?
I'm well aware that dems have been buying votes for decades, so no suprise that this is business as usual. It's just that this time, the disparity if off the charts.
Noticed you apparantly had no comment on my last point.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Because it was pointless...
July 13, 2009 - 15:50 ET by Jen7As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
Family Guy
From the same USA Today
July 10, 2009 - 01:10 ET by 24enakFrom the same USA Today article.
Much of [the money] has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation…The imbalance didn’t start with the stimulus. 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.
The ratio of Democrats and Republicans was the same as it was from 2005 to 2007. When the Democrats weren't in office or power. The money is going to the areas that need it, not because of who they voted for.
This is all predicated upon
July 10, 2009 - 01:26 ET by RR GOPThis is all predicated upon the idea of the stimulus money doing any good in the first place-it won't.
Oh, they might be able to employ a few people for a few months, might be able to keep on county workers for a few years, but in the long run state and local governments are microcosms of what is going on at the national level.
Most all of them have their graft, their pet projects, embezzlement, mismanagement, 'social programs' and waste in general that will just suck up the stimulus money into a vacuum.
The problem is that they simply aren't held accountable, will continue to dictate in order to support themselves and their buddies, and will continue to waste money on BS that doesn't work.
Imagine a county using stimulus money to build a thousand home development. OK, so hundreds of workers will be employed for a couple of years. But, most of those homes will just sit there empty and given that their construction was overseen by politicians probably wouldn't be worth a damn in a few years anyway.
My point is that a private developer coming in and building those homes based upon supply and demand would help tremendously, and would be based upon an influx of employed people that need to live where they work and can actually buy these homes...and many of them would probably be ones who start their own businesses locally...thus hiring more people, adding to tax revenues and so on.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
The possibility of funny business
July 10, 2009 - 22:40 ET by SchnikeysI'm not convinced that there was any funny business going on.
It could be that, since Obama carried a lot more urban and highly-developed areas of the nation, these areas required more money, and therefore, received a higher portion of the "stimulus" package.
That doesn't go to say that I think that Obama's stimulus recovery thingamajig was a good idea.
schnikeys
July 10, 2009 - 22:56 ET by TN MomIt could be that, since Obama carried a lot more urban and highly-developed areas of the nation, these areas required more money, and therefore, received a higher portion of the "stimulus" package.
Oh. That's why $18 MILLION goes to saving Pelosi's little orange marsh mouse in San Fransisco. I wonder what the unemployment rate of little orange marsh mice was before the stimulus! The little mice will, of course need healthcare, so I guess I will be tapped to pay for that as well. Oh, and it's little burps will destroy our planet, so the Dems will make me pay the little mice's share of carbon credits. And through the magic of ACORN, the little mice get to VOTE; twice...
John Galt, please pick up the courtesy phone: A Spendocrat is on line one demanding a handout...
T-Mom... You've got me
July 10, 2009 - 23:03 ET by bigtimerT-Mom...
You've got me grinning as I post this...you are really on a roll tonight.
Totally agree with all you said above...with such wit too.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt
July 10, 2009 - 23:27 ET by TN MomDemocrats: Chasing their tails for a piece of cheese!
Well, I hope they get
July 10, 2009 - 23:34 ET by bigtimerWell, I hope they get caught in the very trap they set.
Their prey are patient.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Some areas need more than others?
July 11, 2009 - 08:50 ET by dscottWhy not ask the real question? Why did those areas who voted overwhelming Democrat need them in the first place? Was it not because they were controlled and run down by the very Democrats in power in those areas in the first place? Doesn't it seem strange to you that the highest areas of unemployment in the country are long term Democrat strongholds? So basically you are excusing the doubling down of a failed policy. Handing out money instead of encouraging business activity.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I'm saying that it's
July 22, 2009 - 23:18 ET by SchnikeysI'm saying that it's possible that since these areas are more developed and more populated, they will probably require more public resources and therefore more stimulus money compared to the remainder of the areas of the United States.
Whether they deserve this money or are only in need of it because they have abused their funds in the past is incredibly up for debate, and very much depends on each individual area's spending history as well as what should be considered a legitimate thing on which to spend funds.
I'm not sure whether Obama's just funneling money to the places that voted for him. I'm also not sure if those places legitimately deserve any great amount of stimulus money, if any at all. I'm just saying that not every slight thing has to be pegged to Obama. Sometimes it's the Democrat/fiscally liberal Republican mayor/governor/county head/non-president government official that needs a good political flogging from those who are fiscally conservative and willing to unite.