Rep. Michele Bachmann’s stimulus plan: $1 billion to each of the 435 congressional districts.»

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/12/bachmann-stimulus-plan/

Bachmann’s stimulus plan: $1 billion to each of the 435 congressional districts.»


Last month, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) voted against the House version of the economic recovery package, claiming that it had “far too little actual stimulus” and “far too much plain old political pork.” In an interview last week with the St Croix Valley Press, Bachmann said that she wished “the bill would contain more money for transportation and roads and infrastructure building.” She then offered an odd proposal for how to do that:

“There are 435 house districts across the United States,” she said. “Let’s say congress limited itself to $435 billion on the stimulus package and $1 billion to the 6th district and put that on infrastructure spending and build the Stillwater bridge, for instance, or widen I-35, or build overpasses by Forest Lake by I-35 where we need them.”

The proposal is obviously oversimplified and has lots of problems, but yet it does have some kind of sense.

It's a marked improvement from "tax cuts."

:woohoo: :hi:

Giant fuckin' gold-plated Jesus ridin' dinosaurs, and everything!

the need for a quality education .

There is so much wrong with her "idea" that it does not even need explaining to DUers. Even the dumbest among us can see that.

Splitting up cash like that smacks of Communism.

district in, say, Wyoming or Montana?

The city of Los Angeles -- metro population approximately 18 million
The state of Montana -- population approximately 1 million

The city of Los Angeles -- metro area has 20 Representatives
The state of Montana -- 1 representative


I'd say this plan is unfair for the state of Montana!

... $800 billion divided among the districts whose representatives voted for it.

If your rep didn't support the bill, you get nothing.

It's not enough money - but neither is the real stimulus. But at least it's spending. But it's also the 100% pork plan.

Fortunately her opinion is utterly irrelevant.

and she's actually got something of a point. I'd prefer better-targeted spending, but I can see the argument for ensuring equality among districts, and districts are the organizational level most closely related to population.

I am proud of my heritage of having been born and raised in Wyoming (except that Cheney came from there).

But they are a single Congressional district with approximately $500K people ranking 51st (if you include D.C.). So we give Wyoming $1BN = $2K per capita

I live in Georgia which ranks 10th in terms of population of 8,200,000 people. So we give Georgia $13BN (13 Congressional districts) = $1600K per capita or only 80% of the per capita for Wyoming.

In terms of demands for infrastructure and ability to drive consumer demand Georgia arguably has greater need for revenue than Wyoming especially when you look at the respective unemployment rates. Wyoming's unemployment rate as of December 2008 was 3.4%. Georgia's unemployment rate is currently 8.1%.

So giving an equal amount per congressional district makes no sense.

I think people would be much more involved if the money was tied to a representative. If it is spent wisely they stay, if not, they go. Goes to show how ugly this is when I have to give Bachmann atleast a little credit for creativity.

Could you imagine a representative in this climate say something like, "Hey I've got a Billion, but I'm going to spend it on overpriced contractors, providing credit to insolvent banks, and funding our local multi-nationals." If and that's a big if, people could hold their reps feet to the fire on spending decisions, it couldn't be as bad as any of the other crappy ideas out there.

am sick of subsidizing the wrong end of this country and the two that Nebraska barfed up and sent to Washington wouldn't spend that money in a way that would most benefit those hardest hit. And one of them is supposed to be a Dem. You know, Ben Nelson, Dumbass-NE, who tied up the bill so that he could try to play deal maker. And all he did was make himself look like a clown.

with one Representative ... (3 minimum electoral votes)

ironically, that would concentrate the spending into the more populous areas ... read: URBAN/Dem ...

:rofl:

Which often need the most help.

Concentrating money in urban areas with greater needs is not a bad thing.

I think the tax base of some districts is probably far greater than that of other districts due to things like where a corporation decided to locate its facilities (and jobs) and where the wealthy have built their upscale housing developments/schools/etc.

Put some stipulations on what it can be spent on (i.e., no Creation Museums). It would solve CA's budget problems immediately.

You don't get a billion dollars to spend on your pet projects.