Democratic Districts Won Twice as Much Stimulus as GOP Districts, Study Shows

[Admiral Yi]

Yi, I think you need to be more cynical. People fight like mad to spend defense dollars in pork projects--so if they play games with the military's budget why wouldn't they play games with a stimulus?

Individuals fight like mad to get an extra sub or carrier built in their home district.  Entire parties don't fight like mad to get a sub built in each one of their home districts.

I wasn't nuts about it, but I was willing to accept the amount of pork that surfaced during the stimulus bill discussions (Reid's high speed rail, e.g.).  The cost of doing business, that sort of thing.  This is different.  This is the *entire* fucking spending bill.

[Admiral Yi]

But I wonder if part of this is to do with distortions of very large and very small projects.  For example the biggest project is in a South Carolina (Republican) district and it's over $1 billion for the decommissioning of some old nuclear site and trying to make the site clean for redevelopment.

A very large project in a Republican district doesn't help very much in explaining apparent pro-Democrat bias.

[Fate]

It's not a pro-Democrat bias. It's a pro-people who actually voted for the bill bias.

[Admiral Yi]

It's not a pro-Democrat bias. It's a pro-people who actually voted for the bill bias.

You know, that's how African kleptocracies operate.  That's fine, there's no law that says you have to have any principles.  But if and when the GOP runs attack ads on pork in the stimulus bill I hope for your own sake you don't flip flop.

[Sheilbh]

A very large project in a Republican district doesn't help very much in explaining apparent pro-Democrat bias.

No but I used that as an example.  Are there some districts where the only stimulus money is really the state aid while in others there are massive project ($500mil+ say)?  If so the positioning of them could distort the picture regardless of individual worthiness.

Reading the report brief they say that adjusting for unemployment, income, percentage of local industry in construction and so on then Republican districts seem to get 24% less. 

Also I looked at California's stimulus by Congressional district and one woman's district (a Democrat) has received $3 billion.  I look up her district and it's Sacramento.  Looking up the recipients in California I wonder if that means her district counts for money sent to the California Department of Transport, Department of Education and so on - because that seems like a flawed way of measuring it.

[Admiral Yi]

Also I looked at California's stimulus by Congressional district and one woman's district (a Democrat) has received $3 billion.  I look up her district and it's Sacramento.  Looking up the recipients in California I wonder if that means her district counts for money sent to the California Department of Transport, Department of Education and so on - because that seems like a flawed way of measuring it.

There's no way.  The state aid part was like 250 billion, California had to get more than 3 billion of that.

[Sheilbh]

Also I looked at California's stimulus by Congressional district and one woman's district (a Democrat) has received $3 billion.  I look up her district and it's Sacramento.  Looking up the recipients in California I wonder if that means her district counts for money sent to the California Department of Transport, Department of Education and so on - because that seems like a flawed way of measuring it.

I think this is it.  The Congressional District in New York that's received most ($3billion) includes Albany, in Pennsylvania the biggest district in terms of funds is the one that includes Harrisburg, in Michigan it's a district that includes part of Lansing.

I read the report on the GM website and didn't see this mentioned so what it could be observing is that state capitals are more likely to have Democrat congressional representation, though not always (Lansing has a Republican).

[Sheilbh]

There's no way.  The state aid part was like 250 billion, California had to get more than 3 billion of that.

Most of the money's not been spent yet.  So far recipients have received under $100 billion (excluding the tax cut) and only around $150 billion has been awarded - which means it's not been spent yet.

Here's the recipient list for California:
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=stateSummaryAllRecipients&statecode=CA

[Admiral Yi]

If you're right Shelf that was a pretty dumbass study.

[Sheilbh]

If you're right Shelf that was a pretty dumbass study.

I think this is it.  I've looked up some other states with a relatively small capital.  It's the same pattern in Wisconsin, Missouri and Alabama.  Of course I'm going off the data from the recovery.gov website and they could have been using different, more detailed data.

Edit:  Looking at their research they used the data from recovery.gov too.  Now admittedly I think it's weird that funds given to state governments are included in that state capital's district, I'd treat that as a separate portion altogether.  However this seems like the sort of thing that two paid, presumably full-time academics should take into consideration.  If it's right.

[Admiral Yi]

I think this is it.  I've looked up some other states with a relatively small capital.  It's the same pattern in Wisconsin, Missouri and Alabama.  Of course I'm going off the data from the recovery.gov website and they could have been using different, more detailed data.

Edit:  Looking at their research they used the data from recovery.gov too.  Now admittedly I think it's weird that funds given to state governments are included in that state capital's district, I'd treat that as a separate portion altogether.  However this seems like the sort of thing that two paid, presumably full-time academics should take into consideration.  If it's right.

Hold on a second, there's nothing in the report that says explicitly that they lumped in state capitals with all the other districts?

[Sheilbh]

Hold on a second, there's nothing in the report that says explicitly that they lumped in state capitals with all the other districts?

No, they don't mention it.

Edit: Looking at it they seem to have conflated Grants and Contracts.  I'm not sure what the difference is but the former contain a lot of money to state governments, the latter almost none.

[KRonn]

It's not a pro-Democrat bias. It's a pro-people who actually voted for the bill bias.

You know, that's how African kleptocracies operate.  That's fine, there's no law that says you have to have any principles.  But if and when the GOP runs attack ads on pork in the stimulus bill I hope for your own sake you don't flip flop.

Well now, I can imagine all the stupid spending in the Stimulus bill, on top of it being politically given out. We see reported often dumb ass items - millions for airport renovations for a tiny airport in a rural town. And a lot more. Enjoy how Congress spends, wastes, our taxes!!

[Jaron]

It is also worth noting that most Republican strongholds are backwater farmvilles that staunchly refuse government aid.

[DontSayBanana]

Again, I'd like to see this study compared to those districts refusing stimulus money; a quick search for "states refusing stimulus money" brings this up, for example: http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/02/27/five-states-whose-gop-govs-may-refuse-stimulus-are-already-on-federal-dole/