Interesting, Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in '08

[deepblue]

I don't think Obama is sending money to pay off his voters, but it does show how areas who usually receives more federal aid tend to vote. Interesting, but probably not surprising.

By Brad Heath, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election. That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation. REPORT: Cities missing out on much needed road funds STIMULUS FUNDS: States aren't using money as intended "There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says. Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college. The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34. Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. "Even if they wanted to, I don't think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that," he says. "Most of what they're doing at this point is just stamping the checks and sending them out," Hughes says. The stimulus package Obama signed in February includes about $499 billion in new spending, and to date, the Obama administration has allocated about $158 billion to specific projects and programs. Most of that money has gone directly to state governments, which then disperse the money to prevent school layoffs, repair roads and fund social services. That contrasts with the $17 billion that Washington distributes directly to local communities. Including the larger chunk of money given to state governments, the aid favors states that voted for Obama, which have received about 20% more per person Not all of the money favors places that supported Obama. About a third of the $17 billion, or $5.5 billion, in contracts that the federal government has signed for projects ranging from repaving runways to cleaning up nuclear waste has gone overwhelmingly to counties that supported McCain. Jake Wiens, an investigator with the non-profit Project on Government Oversight, says it's too soon to draw meaningful conclusions about whether the type of aid in the stimulus favors Obama's constituents. But, he says, "it will be important to pay close attention as the data come in to ensure that political favoritism plays no role." The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau. USA TODAY's review did not include Alaska, which does not report its election results by county.

[deepblue]

Story link.

link

[deepblue]

Try again

link

[Azadre]

Originally Posted by deepblue I don't think Obama is sending money to pay off his voters, but it does show how areas who usually receives more federal aid tend to vote. Interesting, but probably not surprising.

Correlation, not causation. If this was a 2009-only occurrence, then I would be upset.

[pouhe]

Conservatives don't like government spending, and are less inclined to request and then receive it.

[Chopped]

this one is easy folks. low income communities overwhelming supported obama. tell me which communities need more help, the low income urban communities or the mid to upper class suburban communities?

[leroy]

Originally Posted by article The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau. USA TODAY's review did not include Alaska, which does not report its election results by county.

Wasn't Katrina/Rita in 2005? The Orleans Parish voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 (link). I'd think that that area got a pretty good portion of government aid in the time period of 2005-07.

[Azadre]

Originally Posted by Chopped this one is easy folks. low income communities overwhelming supported obama. tell me which communities need more help, the low income urban communities or the mid to upper class suburban communities?

That's not completely true. Low income communities in urban settings overwhelmingly supported Obama. Low income communities in rural settings still voted for McCain by 60-40 margin, at least in Ohio.

[SamFisher]

Really? You find this "interesting" and evidence of some sort of corruption?

First - considering that the majority of the country voted for Obama, by mathematical probability they're going to get more money. Further considering that the vast majority of urban areas voted for Obama where unemployment is high, there is more infrastructure either to be repaired or built (as it has a more beneficial impact) and pre-existing programs and where it's easier to create employment-generating infrastructure projects and programs.................where would you expect the majority of the stimulus money to go? To flow disproportionately to rural areas with less dense populations and less unemployment? where the money would be not as effective? I'd like to see your math on why this is a good idea?

Second - congress is largely the one that determines these appropriations - do you know this?

Third - there's a front page NYT story today that directly contradicts this - in highway funding at least, it appears that rural areas (and their tea party red state congressman, the few that are left) have been hogging a disproportionate share of the stimulus money.

[deepblue]

Originally Posted by SamFisher Really? You find this "interesting" and evidence of some sort of corruption? First - considering that the majority of the country voted for Obama, by mathematical probability they're going to get more money. Further considering that the vast majority of urban areas voted for Obama where unemployment is high, there is more infrastructure either to be repaired or built (as it has a more beneficial impact) and pre-existing programs and where it's easier to create employment-generating infrastructure projects and programs.................where would you expect the majority of the stimulus money to go? To flow disproportionately to rural areas with less dense populations and less unemployment? where the money would be not as effective? I'd like to see your math on why this is a good idea? Second - congress is largely the one that determines these appropriations - do you know this? Third - there's a front page NYT story today that directly contradicts this - in highway funding at least, it appears that rural areas (and their tea party red state congressman, the few that are left) have been hogging a disproportionate share of the stimulus money.

Hey Jerk,

Me finding it interesting doesn't mean I think there is any corruption involved, I said as much, so stop making things up.

From the article

Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. "Even if they wanted to, I don't think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that," he says.

[Major]

[i]The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.[i/]

This seems like a simple case of urban vs. rural. Notice how many more counties voted for McCain - these are a bunch of small rural counties with fewer people than the Obama counties. I'm not too surprised that more money would go to urban centers as opposed to rural areas, simply because of the readiness of more projects and aggressiveness of those cities/counties.

I'd guess if you did a study purely on urban vs. rural per-person $s, it would be an even more pronounced difference.

[Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Major I'd guess if you did a study purely on urban vs. rural per-person $s, it would be an even more pronounced difference.

wouldn't it make more sense the stimulus would lean towards having a better $/person ratio in the rural areas? For instance a piece of infastructure in a city serves far more people than in a rural area so it seems like the value would be higher.

[Major]

Originally Posted by CaseyH wouldn't it make more sense the stimulus would lean towards having a better $/person ratio in the rural areas? For instance a piece of infastructure in a city serves far more people than in a rural area so it seems like the value would be higher.

True, if they were reasonably evenly distributed - except I'm guessing that a good chunk of those rural areas are simply getting no stimulus projects at all. My guess is that the vast majority of construction and the like are all going to urban places that probably have the highest need or the most deterioritating infrastructure.

Of the places that are getting stimulus projects, I'd agree - the rural areas would probably show a higher per-person ratio than urban areas.

[rocket3forlife2]

Conservatives claim that government is the problem anyway..Why should they want or be given the money?Give it to the people who are the most needy and appreciative.

[SamFisher]

Originally Posted by deepblue Hey Jerk, Me finding it interesting doesn't mean I think there is any corruption involved, I said as much, so stop making things up. From the article

In that case- what part of the relatively basic logic behind the urban/rural/majority/minority explanation - which basically boils down to x +1 > x, do you find surprising/interesting?

I'd like to know. I personally find it neither surprising nor especially interesting in any sense.

For a smart guy, you seem to keep making dumb arguments that deliberately obscure facts to imply some sort of political agenda.

[FranchiseBlade]

It's also true that some governors in places that voted against Obama are refusing the stimulus money.

[adoo]

Originally Posted by pouhe Conservatives don't like government spending, and are less inclined to request and then receive it.

selective memory,

Bridge to No where

[Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by SamFisher In that case- what part of the relatively basic logic behind the urban/rural/majority/minority explanation - which basically boils down to x +1 > x, do you find surprising/interesting?

what part about per person do you not understand. Even if Obama won 3:1 the per person amount wouldn't change.

[deepblue]

Originally Posted by SamFisher In that case- what part of the relatively basic logic behind the urban/rural/majority/minority explanation - which basically boils down to x +1 > x, do you find surprising/interesting? I'd like to know. I personally find it neither surprising nor especially interesting in any sense. For a smart guy, you seem to keep making dumb arguments that deliberately obscure facts to imply some sort of political agenda.

What do I find interesting?

First the majority/minority thing doesn't really mean a lot here. Since the numbers are calculated per person. Its entirely possible for the minority to have a higher per person number, while the majority still have the higher total number. (not in this case obviously)

urban/rural, sure urban areas have more projects to be built/fixed, they also have higher population concentration. It is understandable that more money will be directed towards those areas, but 2x higher per person number is a bit surprising. Like major said maybe some rural areas are not getting anything.

So its not "x +1 > x" like you said, and please do explain what "dumb arguments" I am making?

[Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by deepblue So its not "x +1 > x" like you said, and please do explain what "dumb arguments" I am making?

you are just stealing all of my arguments.