The latest stimulus showdown in the Senate: should money from the $787 billion package pay for signs that say a project is being funded with stimulus money?
No way, said New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, who today tried to ban funding for the signs, which are prominently displayed at the highway projects around the country. "Considering the questionable effectiveness of the stimulus bill, it is completely unreasonable that signs are being constructed at a price tag of hundreds to thousands of dollars apiece for lawmakers to pat themselves on the back about this legislation," he said in a statement. And offered an amendment to the transportation spending bill that would ban funding for the signs.
Democrats said the signs were absolutely fine. California Sen.Barbara Boxer said on the Senate floor that it didn't matter whether lawmakers voted for or against the stimulus plan, they should still fund efforts to tell people what it was doing.
...At stake: jobs for sign makers, jobs for others if the money were to be used differently, and control over how the stimulus package is perceived. Since the plan was enacted, Democrats and Republicans have fought over how fast the money is being spent, and whether it has delivered results.
The signs present risks to both parties, though. If voters decide the spending was a waste, the signs will remind them of the Democratic program. If the stimulus is ultimately seen as helping the economy, the signs remind voters that Republicans largely opposed it.
Let's not delude ourselves. It's all about how the stimulus package is perceived. I seriously doubt the senators cared a whit about jobs for sign makers when debating this proposal. But the proposal failed. The signs will stay. Which, if you take the writer's interpretation, suggests that the Democrats are more confident that people will see it their way.
Leave a comment