Stimulus Road Work Signs

[KillerTux]

$$$20$$$ Million dollars spent on those signs 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180

Why don't they use the media or a website to advertise what the funds are doing or going towards?

[BigMattFromTexas]

OK, so I don't have a big issue with the sign stating what the project is, but why do they need a huge sign underneath that? Thank you Mr. Obama...
BigMatt

[corco]

I like the signs- look, it's not the best possible use of money, but it does make it clear where the vast majority of the money is being spent. Without them, you'd have the uneducated masses whining "Where are all those Obamadollars going?" At least this makes it reasonably clear.

While not the ideal form of employment, the signs themselves do stimulate. Materials have to be purchased to produce the signs, which helps keep the manufacturers of those materials in business, and then the signs are made in sign shops, which keeps the sign manufacturers in business. The profits from the sign materials and the wages paid to the laborers who make the signs are trickled back into the economy just as much as the materials/labor in any other stimulus project. Sure, the product may not be as useful as a repaved road, but the effect to the economy is identical. (It goes to the very sound and well accepted Keynesian (!) economic theory that it is better to pay people to dig holes and have them fill them back in then to let them sit on their butts doing nothing- Keynes being the economist that was the inspiration for many of Reagan's economic policies)

Since the cost of signs was highly, highly negligible compared to the total stimulus project, I'd say the notification value offsets any lack of usefulness. $20 million can't buy very much in road construction.

The vast majority of the public aren't going to check a website to see where the money is going, they are just going to sit on their sofas watching Fox News report that the stimulus money is being sent to Iran to build nukes and CNN report that the stimulus money is being used to save kittens and bring about endless prosperity. Given that the media has become entirely useless as a vehicle for reporting facts, there's no possible way to get any sort of objective facts about the stimulus package without clear, obvious indicators of where that money is going. The easiest way to do this is to post a sign everywhere  there's money being spent, so that folks can decide for themselves whether it is being spent wisely. Of course the Republicans are lobbying against it! If the location of spending were buried on a website, there would be a lot more people whining about the package and therefore anti-Obama. Putting the signs out there, making it very clear that the repaving of Rundown Town, Nebraska is brought by stimulus funds allows people to see the money is being used in their community, making them far more sympathetic to the package.

The arguments against the signs are all politics- a great way for one political party to try to make another political party to look bad for trying to do the right thing. I'm not saying both sides don't do that to each other, just that it makes me sad that we've sunk to that level.

[bugo]

OK, so I don't have a big issue with the sign stating what the project is, but why do they need a huge sign underneath that? Thank you Mr. Obama...
BigMatt

Yeah, kid, blame everything on Obama.  It's Obama's fault that my Coke went flat.  It's Obama's fault that I stubbed my toe this morning.  It's Obama's fault that The Dukes Of Hazzard was cancelled.  Blame Obama.

Let me guess: your parents are Republicans.  The fruit doesn't fall very far from the tree.....

[KillerTux]

It is not like the President didn't endose the whole "put American to work" project, so if you are hyping something you are going to have to take in the positive and negative aspects of it. As an executive, he aimed to make government more transparent and he did a great job with this project. I already knew government is a big bloated machine under any administration and if you look at the website they set up, Recovery.gov, some projects are under zip codes and cities that don't exist  If you read the article, Tennessee tried to save money and made the signs small which means more money for asphalt and workers pay. Republican is not a dirty word same thing with democrat, it is the people who are in office and their actions which mean something

[corco]

If you read the article, Tennessee tried to save money and made the signs small which means more money for asphalt and workers pay.

The thing is that that's a nice gesture, but it's incredibly token. Say they spent 1/3 as much on signage as they would have otherwise- that means they saved $24,000. You can't even pave a quarter mile of road for $24,000.

Republican is not a dirty word same thing with democrat

I completely agree with this- it's not fair to say or imply someone is stupid because they fall on either side of the aisle. Both sides have sound ideologies, in theory. My strong suspicion is that the average American Republican and the average American Democrat really have similar beliefs and wants, for the most part (at least on economic policy). The average Washington Republican and the average Washington Democrat want entirely different things, and the media just fans the fire.

The problem comes when people are misinformed- but who is to blame for that? There's no clear answer, since it's so hard to obtain good information anymore. My argument would be that signs do present good information, and since, let's face it, you're almost certainly the exception to the rule and most people can't be bothered to check a website, they are among the only means to objectively and visibly show where money is being spent.

[Scott5114]

The problem comes when people are misinformed–

I would take that further and say that the problem is when people are misinformed and dig their heels in and fight to stay that way. You can't learn if you won't listen.

[agentsteel53]

"Where are all those Obamadollars going?"

I've never wondered such a thing.  Every time I pass one of those signs I think "couldn't they have saved the money and applied it to the next project instead?"

I know Keynes noted the holes being dug and filled in - but did he ever say anything about "this hole proudly dug and filled in thanks to the American Hole Digging and Filling Act"?  

seems to me that there are plenty of real projects to go around - even if they are the equivalent of holes being dug and filled in, I'd honestly rather have 100 relatively useless bypasses built, than 99 relatively useless bypasses built with full signage indicating that the bypasses were built thanks to the American Relatively Useless Bypass Act.

then again, I just don't think the government should be in the business of advertising.  I am well aware of its existence every April 15th and that's more than enough for me.

[agentsteel53]

The vast majority of the public aren't going to check a website to see where the money is going, they are just going to sit on their sofas watching Fox News report that the stimulus money is being sent to Iran to build nukes and CNN report that the stimulus money is being used to save kittens and bring about endless prosperity. Given that the media has become entirely useless as a vehicle for reporting facts, there's no possible way to get any sort of objective facts about the stimulus package without clear, obvious indicators of where that money is going.

except the signs are not clear indicators.  Even if you drove up to every ARRA sign and added up the dollar amounts, you would have no objective reference to compare it to without (horrors!) doing all the research by yourself.  Who's to say that if the signs point out $6 million of fund usage, that the total allocated wasn't really $7 million, with the remaining million indeed going to Iranian kittens.

I would say the signs are about as effective a device for discourse as Fox News and CNN.  Lazy people are going to be lazy and believe what they want to believe anyway.  I just don't think my tax dollars should be spent pandering to them. 

[corco]

seems to me that there are plenty of real projects to go around - even if they are the equivalent of holes being dug and filled in, I'd honestly rather have 100 relatively useless bypasses built, than 99 relatively useless bypasses built with full signage indicating that the bypasses were built thanks to the American Relatively Useless Bypass Act.

then again, I just don't think the government should be in the business of advertising.  I am well aware of its existence every April 15th and that's more than enough for me.

That's entirely valid. I suppose my counter would be that if you are like most people and not driving tens of thousands of miles on random highways every year, but are instead stuck in hole-in-the-Wall, South Dakota working whatever job, and see that "hey! That money I gave away on April 15th is actually being spent to rebuild that bridge I drove over every day," you might think otherwise, and you may not get an opportunity to think that if there wasn't a sign there telling you the money came from federal sources.

Even if you drove up to every ARRA sign and added up the dollar amounts, you would have no objective reference to compare it to without (horrors!) doing all the research by yourself.  Who's to say that if the signs point out $6 million of fund usage, that the total allocated wasn't really $7 million, with the remaining million indeed going to Iranian kittens.

Would most people really think that hard about it though? I feel like a sign saying, "hey, here's a cool new stimulus bypass road in your neighborhood" should be enough to make most people feel like they're being included in the package and their community is benefiting in some way. Is that quasi-propaganda? Maybe so, but the fact that the signs are entirely true is a good defense to that.

If reports surface that the signs are indeed lying, well yeah, that's really bad and should be sternly addressed, but there's been no evidence of that at all.

I would say the signs are about as effective a device for discourse as Fox News and CNN.  Lazy people are going to be lazy and believe what they want to believe anyway.  I just don't think my tax dollars should be spent pandering to them.  

Fair enough.

[agentsteel53]

I feel like a sign saying, "hey, here's a cool new stimulus bypass road in your neighborhood" should be enough to make most people feel like they're being included in the package and their community is benefiting in some way. Is that quasi-propaganda? Maybe so, but the fact that the signs are entirely true is a good defense to that.

I've never had a desire to be made to feel that way.  I figure each year my taxes are doled out towards projects both sensible and foolhardy, and to show me a sign that says "some of your tax money was spent sensibly" will instill in me the notion of "tell me something I didn't know".  So there is no overt lie there, but there is the sense of wasted breath.

if somehow, for free, I could be told of the cool new bypass, then I wouldn't look at the whole idea so askance.  The fact is, though, the stimulus signs are the equivalent of using my own bank account to buy me flowers.  

(besides, isn't the bypass self-evident?)

[US71]

$$$20$$$ Million dollars spent on those signs 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180

Why don't they use the media or a website to advertise what the funds are doing or going towards?

#1 Not all states use the signs (Oklahoma & Texas don't)
#2 Each state's signs may be different:
Arkansas


Mississippi


Missouri



Note Mississippi has an extra sign with all the politicians with their fingers in the pie.

ALSO: why doesn't anyone report on the money being wasted, like repaving roads that don't need it instead of fixing decaying bridges?

Oh wait! Someone has: http://road-less-taken.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-waste.html

[Scott5114]

It is relatively difficult for some random schmo to say whether a road "needs" repaving or not. Condition of pavement is not always evident from the feel or appearance of the surface.

[agentsteel53]

It is relatively difficult for some random schmo to say whether a road "needs" repaving or not. Condition of pavement is not always evident from the feel or appearance of the surface.

but, once repaved, one can tell that the road is newly repaved.  One doesn't need a sign informing them of it! 

[US71]

but, once repaved, one can tell that the road is newly repaved.  One doesn't need a sign informing them of it! 

The signs are usually removed after the project has been completed

[agentsteel53]

The signs are usually removed after the project has been completed

ugh! so we have obvious work activity going on, and a sign saying "behold, for we have obvious work activity going on"? 

[triplemultiplex]

I completely forget which state this was (or might even have been Ontario) but every construction project I encountered had a sign to the effect of "Your Tax Dollars at Work".  And this was long before ARRA or any of the current political discourse.  I don't like that people need this reminder, but it seems like a good idea to put it up there so they know unequivocally they are getting something for their money.  I think most folks just don't see how their tax dollars are spent despite the fact that they are surrounded by their tax dollars at work every time they flush the toilet or eat a steak.

[agentsteel53]

I completely forget which state this was (or might even have been Ontario) but every construction project I encountered had a sign to the effect of "Your Tax Dollars at Work".

this is pretty common all over the US, and probably Canada too. 

the only time I've ever liked a sign like this was because of this awesome error:

[US71]

ugh! so we have obvious work activity going on, and a sign saying "behold, for we have obvious work activity going on"? 

To show ARRA money being used, in this case.

[agentsteel53]

To show ARRA money being used, in this case.

it doesn't make a whit of difference to me what money is being used.

ARRA money, interstate funds, gas tax money, taxes from that casino they just built, plain and outright extortion ... all I know is, money leaves my wallet, and shows up in the form of a bypass.  What happens between then and there is immaterial to me.  Just like there are sensible uses for my tax dollars, and senseless uses, there are also sensible ways to take it from me, and senseless ways.

in short, I don't care how the sausage is made! 

[J N Winkler]

We have been here before.  I will say again what I said before:  the stimulus signs are a well-intentioned gesture toward transparency which fails because (1) many states are not using the stimulus signs at all, or are not using the stimulus signs for all their ARRA projects; and (2) the basic design of the stimulus sign does not include metadata which is required to retrieve details of contract scope.  (2) also applies to the Recovery.gov website, which is another well-intentioned gesture that fails--if you wanted to obtain the construction plans for a particular ARRA project without having the state DOT charge you for research, you would go to the tools that have been around for decades, i.e. TIPs and letting lists.

$20 million nationwide is not much in comparison to annual highway spending of $100 billion.  $20 million will barely buy a rural interchange job.

[agentsteel53]

indeed, there is no actual transparency.  if a smiling politician tells you "this is an example of where your tax dollars go", do you think he's telling the whole story?  in fact, I'd be more likely to assume he's providing smoke and mirrors so I ask fewer questions about where else my tax dollars go.

the ARRA signs are just that: smoke and retroreflective sheeting.

[J N Winkler]

We are myopic because of our interest in roads.  Highway infrastructure spending is only a relatively small part of ARRA, and it is relatively well catered for through the existing methods of documenting highway expenditure (TIPs, letting lists, contract awards, etc.).  The parts of ARRA I worry about more are the energy parts.  Where does the money actually go?  What specific projects does it pay for and how do they help us become more energy-independent?  I have a sinking feeling that a lot of ARRA spending is turning into Peter's Pence to the no-carbon activists and the media is ignoring it because they think the public is dumb and wants story after story which amounts to shaking the fist at ARRA signs.

[agentsteel53]

the media is ignoring it because they think the public is dumb and wants story after story which amounts to shaking the fist at ARRA signs.

probably not a bad assumption, and one that furthers their causes nicely (namely, selling advertisements and staying in business). 

Hardly anyone's going to read a well-thought-out and fully researched article full of boring numbers, but a quick op-ed about the loveliness/awfulness of the ARRA signs is bound to generate traffic.  Especially if you allow comments at the bottom of the page.

[corco]

the media is ignoring it because they think the public is dumb and wants story after story which amounts to shaking the fist at ARRA signs.

That's because the public is by and large pretty dumb. The public likes controversy, something they can read real quick and get riled up about (with the duration of the riling lasting about 3 minutes) without having to think too hard.

The publication of this article, and its presentation as a big deal in my mind is irresponsible journalism. No matter what one may think about the signs themselves, there's essentially no logical argument that can be made that says "These signs are a big deal" or even "These signs are newsworthy." The overall cost is presented as something exorbitant, but those signs are really quite cheap, and as you have noted, $20 million is virtually nothing in the context of the entire stimulus package. It seems like a lot to the average Joe reading the newspaper, but the average Joe reading a newspaper isn't funding the construction of a road network.

The article is just a way to get some Republicans/fiscal conservatives fired up over absolutely nothing. The irony is that many of the states with the worst signs, like Mississippi, are some of the states whose citizens and government preach fiscal conservatism, while deriding the federal government for spending too much. Oops. Of the signs US71 posted, Missouri had both the smallest sign and is the state most favorable to the Obama administration. Oops again.

The point is that it is in no way newsworthy and it is in no way partisan. The article presents the facts as both newsworthy and partisan, which is remarkably silly and irresponsible.