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.
No comments:
Post a Comment