Tuesday, July 20, 2010

$20,000 In "Stimulus" Money For Two Road Signs That Were Up For About A Month...

Make no mistake about it...I love living in Aliso Viejo, and I am planning to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. One of the great things about living where I do is our large number of parks and open areas. Every single street is beautifully landscaped and literally every part of the city is well maintained. We have a great fireworks show every Fourth of July and a lot of community activities, including a brand new aquatic center. Now, we all know that this doesn't come cheap. I currently pay $339.52 a year to the city association to help fund our pleasing-to-the-eye lifestyle.

Another great thing about Aliso Viejo is that thanks to this city association fund, our streets are re-paved much more often than they are in other cities. As soon as you are within the city, you immediately notice how well the streets are maintained. So, earlier this year when signs went up and preparations began for the re-paving of all of the streets around our community, I didn't really give it a second thought. They were just re-paving the streets again. That was, however, until they put up the big green signs at either end of the roadwork stating the re-paving of these roads could be credited back to "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act".

Now don't get me wrong, at some point down the road if using "stimulus" money right now results in a reduction in my city association dues, I will be pleased as punch, but I find it hard to believe that I am going to see that. I am sure the money saved will just be put into another areas of the community.


Either way, these large green signs got me thinking about all of the areas in other parts of Orange County that could have probably used that stimulus money much more than Aliso Viejo. I began to wonder why with the horrific state of some of the schools in Orange County was this federal stimulus money going to pave the roads in a community where the residents paid an association fee to pave the roads? Didn't this just seem like more government waste?

By the time I was done thinking about it, I was, as usual, pretty steamed. It seemed ridiculous to spend this money on our roads in Aliso Viejo instead of on schools, children's programs, or GOD FORBID! reducing taxes for the middle class!

While I am admittedly sorry that I did not do so, but I had planned on having Teresa take a picture of me standing next to one of those big green signs with the little Soviet flag that is part of my cold war display at the house, but we never got around to it. The roadwork finished up months ago and while I sometimes think on those big green signs once in a while, I have moved on to other things.

That was until today when I ran across this article about my now-gone big green signs. An article that explains, quite simply, that the reason that my roads were being paved instead of money going to schools or reducing tax burdens was to employ the people who were working on the road outside my house.


The true purpose of the project was to ensure those road workers had money in their pockets. Money that they would take outside of our community, back home to theirs, and spend. Exactly how the stimulus money is supposed to work, right? I get it - I'm onboard - I'm part of the team! Well, as much as I can be.

I then, however, began to reflect on what I know about any government-funded projects...the $500 paper clip. Anyone who tells you that a large percentage of the funding for any project doesn't simply get wasted and blown on inflated hourly rates, inflated material costs, and the bureaucracy that makes it all possible, is just flat out lying.

The proof of this is in the fact that my two big green signs supposedly cost $10,000 a piece to make, put up, and take down. Multiple that $10,000 by all of the big green signs that are going up wherever "stimulus" money is being spent across this fine nation, and we, the taxpayer, are spending millions of dollars on those big, temporary green signs.

I think some of the Facebook comments I saw put it best: "Waste our money to let us know you're wasting our money."...and..."Way to go, big government...and thank you, people who support big government. You are doing one hell of a job!"



Signs of the Stimulus
Some Call it Transparency, Others Another Example of Government Waste
By JONATHAN KARL and GREGORY SIMMONS

As the midterm election season approaches, new road signs are popping up everywhere – millions of dollars worth of signs touting "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and reminding passers-by that the program is "Putting America Back to Work."

On the road leading to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC there's a 10' x 11' road sign touting a runway improvement project funded by the federal stimulus. The project cost nearly $15 million and has created 17 jobs, according to recovery.gov.

However, there's another number that caught the eye of ABC News: $10,000. That's how much money the Washington Airports Authority tells ABC News it spent to make and install the sign – a single sign – announcing that the project is "Funded by The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and is "Putting America Back to Work." The money for the sign was taken out of the budget for the runway improvement project.

ABC News has reached out to a number of states about spending on stimulus signs and learned the state of Illinois has spent $650,000 on about 950 signs and Pennsylvania has spent $157,000 on 70 signs. Other states, like Virginia, Vermont, and Arizona do not sanction any signs.

One state brags it posts signs but manages to keep the process cost-effective. The Tennessee Department of Transportation boasts, "There are a total of 324 signs statewide for a total cost of $12,931 and an average of $37.67 each." The reason for the small cost, they say, is that their signs are small-- about equal to a speed limit sign.

In response to questions by ABC News, Jill Zuckman of the Department of Transportation said, "The best estimate is that states have spent about $5 million of the $28 billion spent on road projects on signs – or less than .02 percent of overall project spending."

Still, some Republicans are crying foul. Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Earl Devaney, Chairman of the Recovery Act and Transparency and Accountability Board, requesting an investigation to "determine the scope and impact of the Obama administration's guidance" regarding signs to stimulus recipients.

Rep. Issa writes that the passage of the Stimulus Bill, "has provided an opportunity for the Obama administration to claim political credit for the various projects around the country that have been funded by this redistribution of taxpayer dollars."

At the center of the controversy are a series of guidelines provided to stimulus recipients. In the letter, Rep. Issa cites what he calls "perhaps the most overly political guidance on stimulus advertising" involving the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a stimulus recipient. According to investigators from the oversight committee, HUD provided the Office of Native American Programs with information on "signage requirements." The document suggested a sign template informing the public the projects had been, "Funded By: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Barack Obama, President."

Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) has joined the chorus of Republican outrage over stimulus signs and claims at least $20 million has been spent on them. He told ABC News, "I think it's a bit of an oxymoron to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, borrowed money, on a bunch of signs to tell them how we are spending their taxpayer money."

Schock's office provided ABC News with administration guidance on stimulus signs sent to him from a constituent. The document, dated March of 2009, outlines the "General Guidelines for Emblem and Logo Applications." The Recovery Act logo which was provided not only looks oddly similar to the Obama logo from the 2008 campaign but its stated purpose, according to the document, is to act as "a symbol of President Obama's commitment to the American people to invest their tax dollars wisely and put Americans back to work."

Rep. Schock argues that the signs are not a wise investment at all, but rather, a waste of money. He took to the House floor today to offer a bill, "to prevent funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 from being used for physical signage indicating that a project is funded by such Act, and for other purposes."

Massachusetts Democrat James McGovern fired back, "This is the best we can get? Not putting up signs?" He continued, "How about paying for the tax cuts for the rich that my friends on the other side of the aisle passed? Hundreds of billions of dollars in debt that you put on the backs of my kids and my grandkids so that the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country can get a tax break."

When asked about Republican outcry over spending on stimulus signs, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs quipped, " I'm glad the Republicans have noticed the several – nearly 11,000 road projects that are underway this summer."

-Robin Gradison and Avery Miller contributed to this report.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

My Take On Illegal Immigration - Part 2

While I view most of it as political fluff, the Master and Commander claims to have done quite a bit already in working towards solving the illegal immigration issue:

"The President and his administration have provided the technical assistance to develop key elements of a bipartisan immigration bill and have taken important steps to make interior enforcement smarter, more effective, and reflective of our values, as well as addressing problems in the detention system to improve accountability and safety."

This may be the only part of what this administration claims to have done that has any substance, though, in reality, all this is saying they have done is dedicate taxpayer funded resources to drafting this new immigration bill and inactively starting working against enforcement of our current immigration laws.


I will talk a bit more on the lawsuit that my federal government just filed against one of the states in our union a bit later, but a good example of this passive stance against enforcement is the fact that one of the reasons cited in this lawsuit for not enforcing current immigration law is that we do not have the facilities to house those that would be detained. So, you just let people break the law because you don't have room for them in your jails? That makes sense. I am sure that will help create a safer America.

"A proposal for comprehensive immigration reform has been presented in the Senate, based on a bipartisan framework the administration helped Senators Schumer and Graham develop."

This bill will be far from bi-partisan by the time it is on the Master and Commander's desk to be signed into law, and really, probably isn't that bipartisan as it stands right now. One party makes a deal with one member of the other party, and all the sudden, a state of bipartisanship exists? I am not buying it.

"The President's unprecedented strategic and integrated approach to border protection and security efforts have increased pressure on illegal trafficking organizations, resulting in record seizures of illegal weapons and bulk cash transiting from the United States to Mexico, lowered average violent crime statistics in states along the Southwest border, and reduced illegal immigration into the United States."

Just because you are doing more than ever before, doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing enough. Record seizures also mean that a record amount of illegal drugs, drug money, and criminals, are still getting through our porous border. While violent crime statistics may be down in the border states, the workload of those trying to enforce our immigration laws is also unprecedented. The reduced number of illegal immigrants has nothing to do with any type of new enforcement methods, or any efforts of the current administration. Illegal immigration is down as a result of America's faltering economy.

"The administration has also eliminated the FBI backlog of background checks for legal immigration applications, and launched a new website that allows legal immigrants to check the status of their applications online and via text message for the first time ever. In its first month alone, three million people registered to receive text message updates on their applications."

This is fantastic news! I am happy to hear it, but I would really like to know how our system is going to handle the millions and millions of applications that are to be filed when amnesty is granted by the passage of the Master and Commander's reform. Who will be in place, and how will they handle that workload? What resources are going to be in place to apprehend and detain those who do not come in and register and those that do not pass the review process?

While these may be some "fine examples" of some of the steps that have been taken, I still think that this administration has been greatly lacking in their response, especially when it comes to securing the border and enforcing our current immigration laws. Where are the numbers that prove that the Master and Commander is taking a stand and enforcing our current immigration laws? Where is the proof that they are doing nothing more than sitting back, waiting, and trying to get through to the coming elections, pushing a bill that will bring about changes that we may not have the resources to support? I just don't see what I was looking for on your website, Master and Commander...

My Take On Illegal Immigration - Part 1

If you type "Barak Obama on illegal immigration" into Bing, the top search result is the Master and Commander's own web site that was created when he was running for office, www.barakobama.com. I decided that I should grab and re-post a part of his plan on how to deal with illegal immigration before it disappears from the site like it was a bad review of General Petraeus on www.moveon.org.

Here is the first part of Obama's web site info (more on the second part later):

The President has made it clear that the only way to truly secure the borders and have an orderly immigration system that honors our traditions as both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants is through comprehensive reform grounded in the principles of responsibility and accountability:

Responsibility from the federal government to secure our borders: The Obama administration takes this responsibility very seriously and has dedicated unprecedented resources to securing our borders and reducing the flow of illegal traffic in both directions.

Responsibility from unscrupulous businesses that break the law: Employers who exploit undocumented workers undermine American workers, and they have to be held accountable.

Responsibility from people who are living in the United States illegally: Undocumented workers who are in good standing must admit that they broke the law, pay taxes and a penalty, learn English, and get right with the law before they can get in line to earn their citizenship.

Comprehensive immigration reform is essential to continuing the tradition of innovation that immigrants have brought to the American economy and to ensuring a level playing field for American workers. It's also essential to providing lasting and dedicated security for our borders.


I agree that we need to overhaul the current immigration system, and that we need to secure the border. I believe that changing current U.S. policy can effect the tide of illegal immigration to the point at which many of illegal immigration's problems can be solved. I believe there is a diplomatic solution, but until your diplomacy starts working, you put boots on the ground to solve the problems now. You use actions and not words. You don't push policy and wait for it to work so that the extra boots are not needed. I sometimes believe this is what the Master and Commander is hoping for; a way to be involved without actually getting involved.

I believe that we should crack down on the businesses that are hiring and exploiting illegal immigrants. Now, I know not every business that hires illegal immigrants is exploiting them, but realistically, I have to think it is widespread enough that we should be doing something about it. While it may be unpopular, in the mean time, until the law changes, we need to enforce the current laws by citing and heavily fining the business owner and deporting the workers that are working for them illegally. It is the letter of the law, regardless of its popularity.

I laugh at the administration's use of the phrase "undocumented workers who are in good standing". That really shows you how the Master and Commander and his administration view our current U.S. immigration policy. They view it as unjust and they want to change it. They, in my opinion, do not view crossing the border into the U.S. illegally as a crime.


You name the laws that we as citizens can break that will continue to leave us in "good standing". Try getting a traffic ticket and not paying it, then see the "standing" in which you find yourself. It should not be up to us to determine which laws we choose to obey and which laws we choose to ignore, and it should most definitely not be up to an illegal immigrant or a Presidential administration to make that decision either.

Since we are knee-deep in changing decades-old policy while the Master and Commander is in command, how about we make these two minor changes? In order to be citizen of the United States, you can no longer just blindly marry into it. If you are a citizen and want to marry a non-citizen, how about that person become a citizen in the same manner that everyone else has to? Also, how about if neither you, nor your wife or partner are citizens, and you just happen to have a baby while you are "visiting" the United States, you and your partner have to apply for citizenship for you and your baby, again, that same way everyone else has to?


That's no immigration by marriage, and no anchor babies. I'll even meet you in the middle and agree that everyone born here from now on, regardless of their parent's citizenship be required to go through a citizenship process at the age of maturity. I'll take your citizenship test and your English test -- bring it on. Oh, and by the way, just to clarify, if I decided to move to France tomorrow and become a member of their collective society, I would have no problem with the understanding that I would have to learn French and pass a citizenship test over there. That's only fair, right?

I know that so many on the other side of the aisle want to paint this as a race and segregation issue, but for many of us, it is just not the case. We are wanting people to abide by the laws like we do, pay taxes like we do, and be just as loyal to our nation as we are.


We want to see you rooting for America, abiding by its laws (all of them), and helping us to continue to build what many of us believe to be the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I always quote back to Dennis Miller who said that he doesn't mind you joining the party, he just would like you to sign the guest book so we know who is here.

Oh, and don't think I purposely glossed over this part: "Undocumented workers who are in good standing must admit that they broke the law, pay taxes and a penalty, learn English, and get right with the law before they can get in line to earn their citizenship." What this means, is that once the new policy is enacted by the Master and Commander, the policy of the United States of America will no longer be to deport people who have entered the country illegally as long as they meet certain criteria, doing away with our current policy of deporting in all cases except for reasons of political asylum.

I am honestly torn on this issue because I do agree with our current law, but at the same time, we have to be realistic about the cost and probability of deporting literally millions of people. If we see a policy that calls for illegal immigrants to actually admit that they have broken the law, agree to pay fines, back taxes and penalties on those back taxes, learn our language, and then get in line to be reviewed for citizenship, just like everyone else, I fully understand that supporting it might be the best thing for everyone.

I would also like to see, however, the resources in place that are ready to act with the full support of the administration to deport the people who do not come in and register, pay their fines, back taxes and penalties and/or who are denied citizenship in the review process for whatever reason. You will excuse my skepticism about the Master and Commander acting against the largest single pool of potential voters and their families and friends who already have the vote once his new immigration policy is in place.

More on this issue later...