Thought it was really conscientious of Richard Eckstrom to promise to keep us posted on how the stimulus money is spent:
More than a half-billion dollars in stimulus money from an estimated $3 billion have come through state government so far, according to a news release from Eckstrom’s office.
“The debt from this spending extends far into the future of our children and grandchildren, so we owe it to those future generations to ensure the funds are spent without impropriety and with accountability and transparency,” Eckstrom said in the statement.
“People deserve easy access to how this money is spent. Not only that, but when spending is done in the open, public officials are usually more accountable,” he said. “They know their spending decisions will be examined by the public. If transparency is important under ordinary circumstances, it’s even more critical with massive infusions of cash like this, which can invite opportunities for waste, mismanagement and even fraud.”
The stimulus-spending details will be updated monthly, Eckstrom said.
OK, let me get this straight — one sixth of this has been spent. You are going to keep us posted as it is spent, which also indicates that this is something that is ongoing, and most of it has not yet occurred. Am I reading that right?
And yet, you already declared the stimulus a failure back on July 13 — the 13th day of the budget year. More than two months ago.
What am I missing here?
Related Posts
Not that he’s not keeping an open mind or anything…..
Maybe they’re taking their financial expertise from the City of Columbia… 3 months into the fiscal year and they’re already broke.
How could it be a success, when only 10% of the money has been spent, and over 75% will not be spent until the 2010 election year.
Democrats created this recession, passed a huge spending bill of pork projects, and they are holding them back for release prior to the election. Cynical SOBs, playing with the poor dummies who elected them.
The White House promised the stimulus would keep unemployment below eight percent. It’s now at 9.7 percent.
9.7% unemployment is a serious understatement of reality.
Clinton changed the method of calculation to not count those who have fallen off the unemployment insurance rolls, and those who have give up searching for work, in order to make his numbers look better than they were.
The real rate of unemployment nationally is an average of 16.2%, and 17% in South Carolina.
To me, it feels like 100 percent unemployment. But that’s probably a problem of perspective…
Recession is when other people lose their jobs.
Depression is when you lose your job.
Recovery is when Obama loses his job.
Dead on, Brad. It’s sick how the repugnantcans have used the stimulus and health care as mediums for political battles rather than honest public policy debate. (I’ll acknowledge that the dems have done the same with the Iraq “War” yet they were too chicken to take a stand at the genesis.)
The GOP made no effort to address health care from 2001-2007 when they controlled most of congress. They served up massive tax cuts for the wealthy (that cost more than the health care bill proposed) yet think tax cuts were the solutions to the near financial collapse.
Currently, they are a party devoid of ideas and intellectual leadership.
You’re not telling the truth, Randy.
Republicans only gave a small tax cut to EVERY taxpayer. It was enough to quickly end the Clinton Recession which began in 2000.
It was Clinton who cut tax rates in half on the incomes of investment bankers and venture capitalists, which was good – a lot of small long-term investors went along for the ride and were able to reinvest much more of their profits.
Both these tax cuts increased economic activity so much that they generated several times as much tax revenue as the “loss” from the rate reductions.
Contrast that with the failed pork spending of Democrats.
By the way, Bush would have had balanced budgets every year had he not increased social welfare spending so much, especially Medicare and research funding.
Lee, I’ll blow your argument to bits with the full understanding that you’ll reply with more bogus statements.
Balanced budget during the W dark period? That’s hysterical. His tax cuts cost 2.5 TRILLION. It’s like taking purposely taking a pay cut but maintaining or increasing (see prescription drug costs) spending – a balanced budget ain’t gonna happen’ cap’n.
The 2003 was largely channeled towards cap gains and dividends. In total, the upper class benefitted incredibly while the median household income, adjusted for inflation, dropped.
In summary, health care is too expensive but tax cuts for the wealthy is perfectly acceptable.
Pathetic position.
Bush’s tax cuts didn’t cost the US Treasury anything. The Clinton Recession had already decreased revenues, but Congress had not reduced spending.
In fact, the boom generated by the Bush tax cuts generated increased tax revenues, enough to pay for the war on terrorism with money to spare, and without deficits.
We could balance the budget now by cutting overall spending back to 2005 levels. Instead, the idiot Democrats have QUADRUPLED the highest deficits of the GOP.
Tax cuts don’t cause deficits – excess only spending does.
Only spending cuts can reduce deficits when the tax rates are at their peak, as they are now.
There are a lot of fools who have been brainwashed to believe there is a limitless amount of tax revenues to be gotten, to finance their grandiose schemes of enriching themselves.
Clinton cut taxes on the highest incomes in half, and they prospered so much that they “contributed” an even larger portion of the tax revenues than before.
By the way, Bush would have had balanced budgets every year had he not increased social welfare spending so much, especially Medicare and research funding.
And if I had been driving 10 mph slower I wouldn’t have been speeding the other day when I got a ticket.
LOL at the lengths these “anti-government” types will go to to defend their favorite big government president.