Q1) How does the ‘‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
formulate sums made available for it's SEC. 1107.APPROPRIATIONS FOR INSPECTORS GENERAL.?
These funds are additional to funds otherwise made available in this Act.
(1) ‘‘Department of Agriculture—Office of Inspector General’’, $22,500,000.
(2) ‘‘Department of Commerce—Office of Inspector General’’, $10,000,000.
(3) ‘‘Department of Defense—Office of the Inspector General’’, $15,000,000.
(4) ‘‘Department of Education—
Departmental Management—Office of the Inspector General’’, $14,000,000.
(5) ‘‘Department of Energy—Office of Inspector General’’, $15,000,000.
(6) ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services—
Office of the Secretary—Office of Inspector General’’, $19,000,000.
(7) ‘‘Department of Homeland Security—Office of Inspector General’’, $2,000,000.
(8) ‘‘Department of Housing and Urban Development—
Management and Administration—Office of Inspector General’’, $15,000,000.
(9) ‘‘Department of the Interior—Office of Inspector General’’, $15,000,000.
(10) ‘‘Department of Justice—Office of Inspector General’’, $2,000,000.
(11) ‘‘Department of Labor—
Departmental Management—Office of Inspector General’’, $6,000,000.
(12) ‘‘Department of Transportation—Office of Inspector General’’, $20,000,000.
(13) ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs—Office of Inspector General’’, $1,000,000.
(14) ‘‘Environmental Protection Agency—Office of Inspector General’’, $20,000,000.
(15) ‘‘General Services Administration—
General Activities—Office of Inspector General’’, $15,000,000.
(16) ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration—
Office of Inspector General’’, $2,000,000.
(17) ‘‘National Science Foundation—Office of Inspector General’’, $2,000,000.
(18) ‘‘Small Business Administration—Office of Inspector General’’, $10,000,000.
(19) ‘‘Social Security Administration—Office of Inspector General’’, $2,000,000.
(20) ‘‘Corporation for National and Community Service—
Office of Inspector General’’, $1,000,000.
This Inspector General fundage alone comes to a whopping, $208,500,000.
Q2) SEC. 1108. APPROPRIATION FOR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ABILITY OFFICE gets $25,000,000. for oversight activities relating to this Act. Is this to
oversee the Inspector Generals collective, and if so,
are the Inspector Generals even trustworthy to begin with? Do they not have to complete and submit reports that can be reviewed against model
projections to determine the neccessity to audit an Office of Inspector General rather than dump $25,000,000. to have another armchair Inspector to
This is like the stereotypical road working crew where one worker is shoveling and four are watching, but with an eight digit dollar cost.
Q3) Under SEC. 1110. USE OF AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL. states, within Subsection, (a) that None of these funds can be made available for a project for
the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is
produced in the United States.
That seems great, but,
in Subsection (b), it says Subsection A shall not apply in any case in which the head of the Federal department or agency involved finds that—
(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the public interest;
(2) iron and steel are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or
(3) inclusion of iron and steel produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.
Why is Subsection (b) even considered, let alone included within the bill?
Subsection (b) = Subpar Congress writes another Subpar bill
Some people say a 25 percent increase in overall cost, if projected using U.S. made steel, would increase at the same rate or more using foreign made
steel and should scope specific exclusions be overlooked as an expense or potential expense -
(which is inclusive of most fabricators and erectors), could add up far above 25 percent and would likely rise much further
as extra work orders for time and materials charges on work excluded explicitly and / or due to obstacles that included work would be systematically
excluded and a no fault cause where, due to an area, enviroment, hazard or other exclusive problem renders work subjective to an exclusive clause
causing increases in cost so much higher, and a tactic often used to increase the cost of a bid, especially on
Public Works Projects.
There's a lot more pork-like items that seem unneccessary redundant, excessive and utter waste of tax dollars.
Q4) In the Reid Amendment for H.R. 1
, the "Net Impact on the Deficit" table is
horrifying. This shows exactly what the title of
this table by year from 2009 - 2019.
Without itemizing each year, the
"Net Increase in the Deficit"
in 2009 is; $214,206,000,000.
by 2019 is; $838,198,000,000.
This is a projected Trillion Dollar Deficit Increase (rounding off).
* the table link above was as passed by the House of Representatives,
Here is the AS PASSED VERSION
Funny, the "As Passed" version shows lower numbers. Again, who is the Mathematician that keeps changing numbers? The AIG Book Cooker?
Does anyone seriously believe this number is even close? what was the formula for this projection?
Barney Frank using the same calculator he used when he said AIG and the others were in great shape?
Personally, I think whomever calculated this forgot a zero in 2019.
$8.5 trillion seems more accurate to me.
[edit on 23-4-2009 by imd12c4funn]
[edit on 23-4-2009 by imd12c4funn]