Well it looks like I was wrong again. The 400 billion dollar jobs bill will actually cost more like 450 billion. 300 billion 2 days ago, 400 billion yesterday and 450 billion just before the speech, but what's a few hundred billion here and there- peanuts.
I totally agree that the Shaffers project was a project for the State Park Access. It won't need to be used very much for the next few years.
I question if it was needed by the community right away, or if this improvement could have waited for better economic conditions. It's 6 million dollars that could have been used for somthing better I think. Hoover Dam gives back electricity everyday, at a cost of about 1 cent per kilowatt hour it is the cheapest energy in the USA. It has paid back the public over and over again.
As you know the Shaffers project was originally slated as a state project until the stimulus program came along- and government officials were looking for projects to spend that money on. Many state projects were hijacked and deemed "recovery act projects"- allowing the state to waste that money somewhere else. There was so much of that money that states even ran out of projects to shift that money into.
While projects like this kept a few workers employed for a short time- the money could have been better spent on other things that create long term jobs- or better yet- not spent at all!
Infrastructure for infrastructures sake does not equate to a better economy and in fact can lead to massive wasteful spending- and I believe most of the stimilus money was just pissed away in typical government spending fashion.
We need a better business climate- not more government spending. Obama wants to piss away another half a trillion right after all the other spending that did not work to improve our economic situation.
My understanding is the federal stimulis was a "use it or lose it" proposition and CDOT didn't have the money for the planned interchange so they used the stimulis to build it when the funding opportunity was presented.
they did have the money- it was in the state budget, it was planned for with state money and already had a construction schedule and money allocated for it. It was removed from the budget and funded with recovery act money when that money was up for grabs.
P.S. the state money was not borrowed money, the recovery act money IS borrowed money.
Is better access to a state park really the priority though? To me it seems like this is kin to paving the driveway with credit card money when the mortgage and electric bills havn't been paid yet.
BearMtnHIB wrote: they did have the money- it was in the state budget, it was planned for with state money and already had a construction schedule and money allocated for it. It was removed from the budget and funded with recovery act money when that money was up for grabs.
P.S. the state money was not borrowed money, the recovery act money IS borrowed money.
Is better access to a state park really the priority though? To me it seems like this is kin to paving the driveway with credit card money when the mortgage and electric bills havn't been paid yet.
State Parks has to get the park open within a certain timeline as part of the gift to the state, from what I understood. It is also a use it or lose it situation.
Regardless of where the money came from, who worked there, who got laid off after the job was done or why it was done when it was done....I, for one, am glad they fixed Shaffers Crossing. It was a dangerous intersection made much worse by increased traffic volume and excessive speeds on 285.
Now I wish they could have completed it sooner...but men in hell want ice water right.
