Well, I'm shocked, just shocked, I tell you!1! :D Lol.. big surprise!
But hey, no worry, I'm sure the Repubs get their turns to do similar things too! <_<
Quote
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/18/democratic-districts-won-twice-stimulus-gop-districts-study-shows/
Democratic Districts Won Twice as Much Stimulus as GOP Districts, Study Shows
Democratic districts have received nearly twice as much stimulus money as Republican districts and the cash has been awarded without regard to how badly an area was suffering from job losses, according to a new study.
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University reviewed the distribution of $157 billion in stimulus dollars based on publicly available reports and found that there was "no statistical correlation" between the amount of money a district got and its income or unemployment rate.
Rather, the study found that Democratic congressional districts received 1.89 times more money than GOP districts. The average award for Democratic districts was $439 million, while the average award for Republican ones was $232 million.
On average, Democratic districts also got 152 awards, while Republican ones got 94.
The data is sure to fuel skepticism about the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February that only garnered three Republican votes. While the administration claims it has created 640,000 jobs, critics point to the still-soaring 10 percent unemployment rate in arguing that the stimulus has had a nominal effect.
Oddly, the Mercatus study found far more stimulus money went to higher-income areas than lower-income areas.
"We found no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding. Preliminary results find no effect of unemployment, median income, or mean income on stimulus funds allocation," the report said.
200-400 million is a lot of money for a single congressional district. That really puts in perspective how big the stimulus was. Wow.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 18, 2009, 11:56:15 AM
200-400 million is a lot of money for a single congressional district. That really puts in perspective how big the stimulus was. Wow.
I live in the People's Republic of Massachusetts! We must have made out like bandits with cash flowing in!!!! :shifty:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 18, 2009, 11:56:15 AM
200-400 million is a lot of money for a single congressional district. That really puts in perspective how big the stimulus was. Wow.
But most of the stimulus was tax cuts and funds for the states (for things like unemployment, paying public sector workers and so on) so it seems difficult to measure how much each district got unless this refers to just the bits that were about building stuff.
Being that, most likely, the heavily urban, poor, and run-down neighborhoods are predominantly Democrat...this doesn't shock or alarm me in the slightest.
Well those red districts, states and protesters claimed they didn't want the money...
Quote from: Vince on December 18, 2009, 12:45:32 PM
Well those red districts, states and protesters claimed they didn't want the money...
This actually happened.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2009, 12:59:31 PM
Quote from: Vince on December 18, 2009, 12:45:32 PM
Well those red districts, states and protesters claimed they didn't want the money...
This actually happened.
True. One reason was along the lines that when the Federal money ran out the state would have to pay a lot of extra money to keep funding up for programs, or end funding which isn't usually so popular to do. Or some felt the money was too much and going to the wrong things.
It does smell fishy.
One thing in the link that doesn't make sense is they claim no corelatiion with income and then say higher income district got more.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 18, 2009, 12:32:52 PM
Being that, most likely, the heavily urban, poor, and run-down neighborhoods are predominantly Democrat...this doesn't shock or alarm me in the slightest.
Aside from valid reasons like this one that there could be a disparity, is anyone surprised by this? Democrats funnel money to their districts just like Republicans, and it stands to reason the people writing and voting for the bill have more pull than those out teabagging.
The obvious answer is that most Republican areas are Republican for a reason - they don't need money.
I also wonder if this accounts for GOP districts whose administrators refused stimulus money. IIRC, some GOP governors/freeholders/mayors decided to "take a stand" and refuse direct infusions of stimulus money.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 18, 2009, 04:26:46 PM
I also wonder if this accounts for GOP districts whose administrators refused stimulus money. IIRC, some GOP governors/freeholders/mayors decided to "take a stand" and refuse direct infusions of stimulus money.
Does that matter?
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2009, 04:27:46 PM
Does that matter?
The article doesn't make it clear whether it reviewed data of what the government tried to send out or data of what the districts actually took in. If they reviewed the intake side, it could matter quite a bit.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 18, 2009, 04:08:17 PM
Aside from valid reasons like this one that there could be a disparity, is anyone surprised by this? Democrats funnel money to their districts just like Republicans, and it stands to reason the people writing and voting for the bill have more pull than those out teabagging.
Yes, surprised. Pork is bipartisan and gets spread pretty evenly (at least it did under Wubya). You're just not supposed to pass a gigantic economic crisis spending bill and lard it up for the home team.
Quote from: Jaron on December 18, 2009, 04:16:22 PM
The obvious answer is that most Republican areas are Republican for a reason - they don't need money.
Which would should up as a negative corelation between stimulus money and district income, but didn't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 04:45:44 PMYes, surprised. Pork is bipartisan and gets spread pretty evenly (at least it did under Wubya). You're just not supposed to pass a gigantic economic crisis spending bill and lard it up for the home team.
My impression of pork type system is that those with more influence get more of it. Thus I'm unsurprised, but I am not well versed in the subtleties of the American political system.
Given that as far as I'm concerned, the stimulus was, at best, money just pissed away, I don't really care if it was pissed on Democratic ground or Republican ground.
Why should the majority reward an obstructionist minority with pork? Starve the beast!
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2009, 06:05:10 PM
My impression of pork type system is that those with more influence get more of it. Thus I'm unsurprised, but I am not well versed in the subtleties of the American political system.
Just barely crosses the threshhold. :P
On your side of the argument there's the fact that Steven's of Alaska used his position as chairman of appropriations to amass mind boggling amounts of pork. Then there's Jack Murtha, who should be, but isn't so far, in trouble for using his position to steer DoD contracts to his home district.
On the other side I remember an article a while back talking about the pork in one of Wubya's transportation bills. The pork was spread evenly on a per reprentative basis in that one between Republicans and Democrats.
But the stimulus bill is supposed to be different. By definition it's not business as usual. You appropiate a bunch of money then the executive branch comes up with rules and procedures for spending it. The guiding principle is supposed to be restarting the economy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 06:44:43 PMBut the stimulus bill is supposed to be different. By definition it's not business as usual. You appropiate a bunch of money then the executive branch comes up with rules and procedures for spending it. The guiding principle is supposed to be restarting the economy.
So perhaps that's was how it was allocated, and it's just a coincidence that more was spent in Democratic districts?
Okay... maybe not :lol:
But is there any real reason to suppose that the economic effectiveness of the stimulus (however you rate it) was significantly influenced by the partisan inclinations of the neighbourhood? I mean, if it helps the American economy that you spend $50 million on building a bridge or whatever, whether that bridge is in a Republican or Democrat district doesn't really matter does it?
I would think that a Republican willing to vote for the stimulus be able to negotiate a pork amount similar to a Democrat willing to vote for the stimulus. However if you approach the issue with a blanket position of government spending BAD BAD BAD (except for missile shields), then your negotiating position will be quite weak.
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2009, 06:52:02 PM
But is there any real reason to suppose that the economic effectiveness of the stimulus (however you rate it) was significantly influenced by the partisan inclinations of the neighbourhood? I mean, if it helps the American economy that you spend $50 million on building a bridge or whatever, whether that bridge is in a Republican or Democrat district doesn't really matter does it?
If your goal is to stimulate the economy, you spend it where unemployment is high, and where incomes are low. The first because you don't want the spending to just bid up labor costs, and the second because you want people to spend and poor people spend more of their income. Now labor is mobile to a certain degree, and since we're talking about infrastructure projects you could introduce additional arguments about infrastructure that has the most urgent need for repair, or infrastructure who's expansion will generate the most growth. But if the George Mason study is accurate we know the money was not distributed using the first two criteria, and it would be very weird if all the bridges on the verge of collapse just happened to be in Democratic districts.
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2009, 07:00:38 PM
I would think that a Republican willing to vote for the stimulus be able to negotiate a pork amount similar to a Democrat willing to vote for the stimulus. However if you approach the issue with a blanket position of government spending BAD BAD BAD (except for missile shields), then your negotiating position will be quite weak.
Available evidence would tend to indicate that there's no-one in Congress who takes a blanket position of government spending BAD BAD BAD/
Looking over the vote totals on the stimulus bill - House Republicans were a unanimous NO. Snowe, Collins, and Specter voted yea. I bet Pennsylvania and Maine were rewarded quite nicely relative to reactionary states like Kansas and Oklahoma. :yes:
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2009, 07:00:38 PM
I would think that a Republican willing to vote for the stimulus be able to negotiate a pork amount similar to a Democrat willing to vote for the stimulus. However if you approach the issue with a blanket position of government spending BAD BAD BAD (except for missile shields), then your negotiating position will be quite weak.
What negotiating power does a Democrat have? He thinks all government spending is GOOD GOOD GOOD and he's going to vote for it anyway.
IF it turns out that this study has some validity, then come the midterms and 2012 the Democrats are going to have to explain to voters why they increased national debt by 12% of GDP just to get themselves reelected.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 07:11:29 PM
What negotiating power does a Democrat have?
I believe the power of Joe Liebermanism is self evident.
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2009, 07:20:32 PM
I believe the power of Joe Liebermanism is self evident.
It wasn't self evident on the stimulus bill. Neither is the power of the hundreds of other Democrats.
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?
This study's valuable but you can look at this on the website. For example here's California:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/StateSummary.aspx?StateCode=CA
And you can then see it by Congressional district.
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 18, 2009, 07:29:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 07:36:40 PM
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.
It's not a pro-Democrat bias. It's a pro-people who actually voted for the bill bias.
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 07:39:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 07:55:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 07:55:36 PM
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).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 07:59:25 PM
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
If you're right Shelf that was a pretty dumbass study.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 08:09:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2009, 08:19:21 PM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 08:28:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2009, 07:52:40 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 18, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
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!!
It is also worth noting that most Republican strongholds are backwater farmvilles that staunchly refuse government aid.
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/
Quote from: KRonn on December 18, 2009, 11:50:55 AM
Well, I'm shocked, just shocked, I tell you!1! :D Lol.. big surprise!
But hey, no worry, I'm sure the Repubs get their turns to do similar things too! <_<
They did. It's called BRAC.
WHAT CONNECTICUT VOTED DEMOCRATIC? GROTON CLOSED!
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 18, 2009, 12:32:52 PM
Being that, most likely, the heavily urban, poor, and run-down neighborhoods are predominantly Democrat...this doesn't shock or alarm me in the slightest.
That's what I thought too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2009, 07:20:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 19, 2009, 03:16:04 AM
That's what I thought too.
Not corelated with income.
Doesn't matter. The stimulus wasn't for "poor areas" but for areas hit by the unemployment, right? And the unemployment following credit crunch didn't hit poor, rural areas, but urban ones, including the middle class ones.
Quote from: Martinus on December 19, 2009, 08:23:48 AM
Doesn't matter. The stimulus wasn't for "poor areas" but for areas hit by the unemployment, right? And the unemployment following credit crunch didn't hit poor, rural areas, but urban ones, including the middle class ones.
Not corelated with unemployment either. At some point you might want to break down and actually read the article. :lol:
Shelf, when I looked at the scatter plots at the Institute site I didn't see any points at 3 billion. I'm thinking they left them out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2009, 06:19:21 PM
Shelf, when I looked at the scatter plots at the Institute site I didn't see any points at 3 billion. I'm thinking they left them out.
I couldn't see any scatter graphs with billions laid out so easily. Plus remember that only New York and California (of the ones I looked at) where over $3 bil. If I had to guess them and maybe Texas and Pennsylvania. The rest were around $500mil-1bil for state government. Which makes sense.