This morning ABC’s Good Morning America actually featured this segment on the use — and wasteful spending — of Porkulus I.
Jonathan Karl wrote on the ABC News website:
- Signs with the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act logo are plastered at stimulus-funded construction project sites around America. The costs of these signs — some of them reaching into the thousands of dollars — are drawing sharp criticism from one member of Congress.
“The folks who support the stimulus package, basically this administration, want to get out there and blow their own horn with taxpayers’ money,” said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. “I mean, they have a lot of campaign money. Why don’t they use the campaign money?”
Scott Whitlock at NewsBusters adds (includes transcript of both ABC segments):
- In a follow-up segment, GMA co-host Diane Sawyer pointed out that of the $787 billion allocated in February for the legislation, only ten percent has been spent. Providing White House talking points, Stephanopoulos offered a tortured explanation for how this wasn’t so: “They [the Obama administration] argue, though, that more than ten percent has actually been put to work. They would argue that about 20 to 25 percent has been put to work, because money has been obligated that allows these projects to go forward.” Continuing this charitable analysis, he added, “Even though the check isn’t written until the roads are actually built.”
Watch:
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air commented:
- The story being told is that the Obama administration wants to advertise itself (and its silly Recovery.gov logo) like billboards on the public highways. The signs are an unnecessary expense to road construction, as state crews already have plenty of orange signs for warning drives of the work being done. It’s advertising, and the only thing it stimulates is Barack Obama’s poll numbers, although even these won’t help.
How much do these cost? Up to $3000 each, depending on the state. As ABC explains, that could fill dozens of potholes with every sign. That’s why a handful of states have refused to use them, preferring to spend money on actual infrastructure rather than in displaying hosannas to Obama.
And then we have a new ad mocking Obama’s present spending problems. What would Obama have done differently? Nothing.
Flashback: January 25, 2009 — Roundtable on ABC News This Week with George Stephanopoulos discussing the proposed stimulus package:
Isn’t there a government website being upgraded at a cost of millions that’s supposed to be used by us to track the stimulus spending?
I have only two questions–who let the children take over our government, and where is the adult supervision?
Related in a spending way, does anyone know how much the 32 czars are being paid?
To answer your question wac for hillary, we find this posted June 15 at CampaignForLiberty.com:
Anyone who reads the news, even badly, probably has noticed the term “czar” being used more often in today’s political dialogue. We are beginning to hear literally every week that the president has appointed another one of these “czars” in his cabinet. I am writing this to show how critical it is to oppose these posts in the executive branch, and so that you may realize the potential dangers.
But first, what is a “czar”? The term “czar” is not new, as it originated in Bulgaria in the tenth century and was the official term for supreme rulers in Eastern Europe until the era of Lenin. However, when used in the news and by politicians in America, the meaning of the word hasn’t really changed. When you hear that a czar has been created or appointed in modern day, it means the following:
*This person is immune to subpoena, congressional oversight and review
*This person answers to the President, and the President only
*This person need not be approved or confirmed by any other branch
*This person has supreme rule over the agencies which he or she is to oversee
*This person’s salary is not disclosed
*The budget which this person oversees is not to be reviewed, and collectively the Obama czars oversee up to $2 Trillion
As anyone can see, great potential exists for a huge imbalance of power from a constitutional standpoint. These people make policy decisions under the table, out of reach of both Congress and the American people. The authority and power of an agency is transferred to one unaccountable person, within the executive branch.
Therefore, with the ability to unconstitutionally create czars, at which point will we have a outright oligarchy, held accountable by no one?
Mike Memoli reported July 10:
[...] Carol Browner, assistant to the president for energy and climate change, is one of 22 West Wing officials earning the maximum salary of $172,200. [...]
I never thought I would see a President take more personal power than Bush did.
It seems everything this administration and this President does is “beyond the reach” of Congress and everyone else. The Press has become a co-conspirator in these acts and when the balance of power changes – and eventually it will- we have only two possibilities – the more likely will be even more over-reaching by the Republicans, or – and IMO far less likely – innumerable scandals and prosecution of historical proportion. Neither offers hope for the country.
Barack Obama is George W. Bush.
[...] SPENDING THE STIMULUS– $ign$. $ign$. Everywhere (Road) $ign$ …. [...]