Posted by: Jane Sasseen on January 26

A fascinating graphic came out this morning from the Center for American Progress, the think tank that has provided a lot of the research — and the personnel — for President Obama’s policy initiatives. (CAP head John Podesta ran Obama’s transition, while former Executive Vice President for Policy Melody Barnes is now in charge of domestic policy for the White House.)
The graphic, available here, shows the state-by-state breakdown of planned spending for the stimulus package. While not all the spending could be tallied — only about 2/3 of the spending initiatives were broken down by state — it gives a good idea of where much of the money would go. Some $63 billion would go to California, for example, while Texas would get $38 billion. Altogether, some 18 states would get more than $10 billion if current plans were passed as is. Wyoming, on the other hand, would get just $1.07 billion.
Of course, with the wrangling over the plans just getting started, those numbers could change somewhat. Republicans want more tax breaks and less spending, business wants more money geared to investments and many states are angling for more money to fund unemployment, Medicare and other benefits. But with everyone angling for a bigger piece of the pie, spending is likely to go up, not down. A trillion dollars seems to be the current marker for the upper limits of the package as it moves through of Congress — as one analyst puts it, everyone is afraid of the “T word.” But count on every state to push for an ever bigger chunk of the growing stimulus pie.
Just last week there was a Report that California was going to be $42 BILLION in the "red" regarding their state budget! If they can't meet their payroll next month, as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated in a Report a few weeks ago, how are they going to make a stimulus plan work????? Who's going to pay the state workers next month? Does ANYONE out there really have a CLUE?!!!!
Good info... next question: where is the money coming from? If 63b in taxes come out of California over the next 20 yrs to pay for this, I'm less concerned. If, on the other hand, people from Wyoming are going to be repaying 5b over time, I think there's a problem with the plan.
Obviously, dollar for dollar return is impossible, but something ought to be done to approximate equity.
I voted for Ron Paul because he "got it".
Maybe California needs to look at its immigrate numbers and quite issuing licenses to foreign nationals, with out proper paperwork. They brought it upon themselves.
FBEye: If Obama twiddles his thumbs for the next year, will that help California pay their $42 billion budget at all?
This money isn't for paying state workers, it's for getting new jobs so that the economy jump-starts and sales taxes start doing their job again.
Yes, there are people out here in California that "get it". Unfortunately, most of them didn't vote for a movie star to be the Governor. He's the same man that pushed for an elimination of the Vehicle License Fee in his recall campaign, which ended up costing the state $7 billion a year.
So, the next time you see a Republican wanting you to sign a petition to change the Constitution to allow Arnold to run for President, please do everybody a favor and slap them.
I have no clue what that guy has been doing for the last several years, but it sure wasn't his job.
TRULY APPRECIATED the graphic; seems that NY, MA and Hedge Fund HQ, Greenwich, CT ALREADY GOT MOST OF $700 BILLION from TARP; 1/2 with NO restrictions (you get Bonus Points when you BUY a Congressman) on how it was to be squandered. Now these 3 get even MORE? Must be some powerful crooks representing these 3 privileged states. What are OUR crooks in Congress doing? Barney's bidding! Sit! Speak! Roll-over! Now, FETCH!!!
Please, quit distorted the numbers. If wyoming get $1 billion, and they only have 532 thousand people there. California's population is 37.3 million. Per capita Wyoming get over twice as much as California!!!
So why does the article say "Wyoming, on the other hand, would get just $1.07 billion" when it should say, "Wyoming, on the other hand, is getting twice as much money per capita than California."
Why does Congress and Obama continue to give more per person to states that don't even support them? Wyoming voted 65% McCain 33% Obama, why is the administration being so nice them?
to Jetpeach:
Why give money to Wyoming? Because they are still Americans even if they voted Republican.
'Winner take all' doesn't mean you ignore the states you lost in the election.
Party politics as usual. *sigh*
Last I knew, Wyoming was still part of the United State of which Obama is now President.
Incidentally, I don't think government, state or federal, should spend money it doesn't have.
Jetpeach,
Get a clue.
You're saying if you don't vote for the winning party you shouldn't get equal federal support. Brilliant.
You're not good at math either. Using your numbers: WY 2011/capita. CA 1699/capita. (Over twice as much?!!?)
I can however see why you personally need more education funding.
Progressive indeed.
But if a California construction company ends up doing a huge infrstructure project in Wyoming, then guess what, that money actually went to California, not Wyoming. (And are those employees of the huge California or other state's construction company American citizens?)
Wow- where to start in blogging these blogs. I must be brain dead.
Government programs. Could there be anything better? I shutter when I read the idiocy of the ultra left leaning writers and their stupidity. Blaming Republicans for all the U.S. ills. Can't you idiots see that Barney Franks and his "buddies" were a prime reason for Fanny and Freddie failing. These failings were a domino effect for the rest of the mess. And give good ole George part of the credit. He sat on his hands and then pushed, with his idiot Democratic buddies, for good money trown toward bad. Stimulus package? Where did all the money go?
Can't the government bureaucrats ever get it????? Government programs are never a problem solver ----- rather they cause much more problem than they solve.
Socialism -- America -- were are there and it is getting worse. Heaven help our Kids and Grandkids.
The rest of the money should be split up amongst the middle class homeowners. Take it directly off their mortgage and then force banks to refinance them. If the middle class house payment is cut in half - they have that much more money to spend every month. And, if they get laid off, they will still be able to make the house payment and it won't go into forclosure. Two birds with one stone!!!
Walk down main street in small towns. They are the ones that need help, not millions for Hollywood(must be payback time), millions for new cars for D.C., and on and on, what a joke this stimulus package is. God save us from this massive corruption... imagine we now have the fox watching the hen house as our secretary of treasury.
It is ridiculous that the federal government deems it necessary to help state governments balance their budgets. Let's exercise some fiscal responsibility and spend less than we earn folks.
Glad to see the blogging by Jane and Co. restarted at this new location. Good reporting.
Can anyone tell me what happened to Obama's plan? As a republican, I actually agreed with some of it. Especially the $3,000 tax credit to businesses for a new hire. Obviously, the liberals got ahold of it and ripped it to shreds. Made it more about increasing the size of government and less about job creation.
im expecting at the very least a thank you card from the guys in wall street as the fellow americans should as well. they did exactly what i said they would, they paid 20 billion dollars in bonuses for year ending 2008 when the economy went in half, and that is how much they have been bailed out by so far. dear wall street people- please send me a thank you card and box of chocolates for making this bonus work out for you in a year that the economy went to half of what it was.
if i find out you pulled out money in novemeber before the economy got hit, then deducted my account similar to how the economy got hit, then took that excess as bonus... ohhh boy, here comes the FEDS. federali's ... the economists may laugh at me, but its because they are naive. i know what these wall street guys are doing.
Can you point me in the direction of people who understand the difference between public (infrastructure, schools etc.) and private work? People who can see the forest for the trees? Each day our government and it’s media perfect the art of deceit, feeding the people meaningless trivia, statistics and sound bytes, like focusing on the millions to re-sod the lawn at the national monument which I expect to already be in the parks budget given the election happens every four years. It’s not like it was a surprise so whoever is suggesting the National Parks need stimulus money to re-plant it should be fired, either for the lie or poor planning.
Whenever you hear your government is going to spend money on anything please realize the laws are structured to ensure this work is performed by union contractors. You can build the same, if not better, quality school, low income housing, highways, cars, lawns and more for 30-50% less with non-union / non-prevailing wage contractors.
If you want your "stimulus" (tax) dollars to provide 30% or more jobs demand the package abandon the federal and state prevailing wage and other requirements designed to line the unions’ pockets. When a Southern California $12.00/hr entry level framer must be paid $32.00+ because the senior housing apartment building has a government guaranteed loan the taxpayer is being robbed blind.
The "bail out" funds to the auto makers were to ensure the unions kept their outrageous agreements and benefits in place. The "stimulus" funds marked for infrastructure, any government backed work, is simply another way of paying off the unions who have been lining the politicians’ pockets for decades.
For our government to get the people the most bang for their buck it must abolish prevailing wage requirements, unions for government employees and support fair competition, not price fixing.
As to taxes and spending, any tax plan based upon income levels that doesn’t take into account the regions cost of living rates is unfair. Setting a national arbitrary number at which taxes begin when the same new home in one region costs 25% of what it does in another is criminal. Applying the same cost of living factors along with per-capita allocation of spending ensures fair and equal taxation and growth nation wide.
Washington Bureau Chief Jane Sasseen and other BusinessWeek writers peel back the curtain on the economy, business and money matters at the White House, Congress, and federal agencies.