John McCain and Tom Coburn appear not to know what a lighthouse is for

[Linus Van Pelt]

From Sens. McCain & Coburn's co-authored list of wasteful pork in the stimulus:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now if they said the sea around was empty of shipping, they might have a point. I know Arizona and Oklahoma are landlocked, but come on...

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6ec66a5a-802a-23ad-484d-533ddbd4dd8e

[Lief 🗽]

Most of these anti-earmark folks are hypocrites of the worst kind. Earmark spending is a minuscule percentage of our yearly expenditures. If they were really concerned about the debt, they would call for higher taxes or cutting military spending.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I think what's more frightening is that millions of purportedly sane and stable people voted these two guys for President and U.S. Senator respectively.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think what's more frightening is that millions of purportedly sane and stable people voted these two guys for President and U.S. Senator respectively.

This is not even close to the most damning thing about either of them.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I think what's more frightening is that millions of purportedly sane and stable people voted these two guys for President and U.S. Senator respectively.

This is not even close to the most damning thing about either of them.

Of course. But it's indicative of their lack of seriousness about governing.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Most of these anti-earmark folks are hypocrites of the worst kind. Earmark spending is a minuscule percentage of our yearly expenditures. If they were really concerned about the debt, they would call for higher taxes or cutting military spending.

For once, I agree with you. All the controversy over earmarks is just a distraction.

[memphis]

Most of these anti-earmark folks are hypocrites of the worst kind. Earmark spending is a minuscule percentage of our yearly expenditures. If they were really concerned about the debt, they would call for higher taxes or cutting military spending.

For once, I agree with you. All the controversy over earmarks is just a distraction.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[paul718]

I don't know anything about this particular project, but the fact that earmark spending is miniscule doesn't make it okay.

[Lunar]

I don't know anything about this particular project, but the fact that earmark spending is miniscule doesn't make it okay.

1.  This is from the economic stimulus package, do you think that repairing this light house was even in the bottom 50th percentile in terms of waste?  To me this project seems completely reasonable as does the pricetag.  Perhaps lighthouse repairs should be funded from port fees or something else instead.

2. Even if it's wrong, as you imply, the point the posters in this thread were trying to make was that McCain & Coburn themselves are wrong by lying to the American people to make them think most of  our money is  being spent on the silliest of small projects they pull out of a trillion dollar budget. 

3.  Earmarking rules are getting better.  Hopefully Young and Murtha are in jail soon (not likely).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't know anything about this particular project, but the fact that earmark spending is miniscule doesn't make it okay.

Earmarks aren't spending. They are allocations of money that has already been approved for spending. Spending is the problem, not earmarks.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Perhaps it's that Coburn/McCain think that the lighthouse doesn't need a living quarters, since most lighthouses don't require that much maintenance anymore?

[cinyc]

Perhaps McCain and Coburn see no point spending millions to rehabilitate a lighthouse on an uninhabited, out-of-the-way island that hasn't been active since 1923.  If it hasn't worked since 1923, the lighthouse is unnecessary for navigation.  If the lighthouse is very difficult to get to, who is going to visit it?  No road even goes there.

They're right.

[Lunar]

Well, that's the point they should be making Cynic.  Whether or not an island is inhabited has very little to do with whether or not there are dangerous waters and shipping lanes nearby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomoy_Point_Light

Yeah that just seems like they're rebuilding it for historical value...probably not the best use of emergency economic stimulus funds.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, that's the point they should be making Cynic.  Whether or not an island is inhabited has very little to do with whether or not there are dangerous waters and shipping lanes nearby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomoy_Point_Light

Yeah that just seems like they're rebuilding it for historical value...probably not the best use of emergency economic stimulus funds.

Perhaps by uninhabited, they were referring to the lighthouse (thus making it pointless to do work on its living quarters) - not sure - just throwing ideas out there.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well, that's the point they should be making Cynic.  Whether or not an island is inhabited has very little to do with whether or not there are dangerous waters and shipping lanes nearby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomoy_Point_Light

Yeah that just seems like they're rebuilding it for historical value...probably not the best use of emergency economic stimulus funds.

Perhaps by uninhabited, they were referring to the lighthouse (thus making it pointless to do work on its living quarters) - not sure - just throwing ideas out there.

I think you're giving them too much credit.
They just thought that the whole lighthouse project sounded bad enough and used it as a whipping boy, without bothering about the details.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, that's the point they should be making Cynic.  Whether or not an island is inhabited has very little to do with whether or not there are dangerous waters and shipping lanes nearby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomoy_Point_Light

Yeah that just seems like they're rebuilding it for historical value...probably not the best use of emergency economic stimulus funds.

Perhaps by uninhabited, they were referring to the lighthouse (thus making it pointless to do work on its living quarters) - not sure - just throwing ideas out there.

I think you're giving them too much credit.
They just thought that the whole lighthouse project it sounded bad enough and used it as a whipping boy, without bothering about the details.

And what's your proof of that?

[Lunar]

Well, that's the point they should be making Cynic.  Whether or not an island is inhabited has very little to do with whether or not there are dangerous waters and shipping lanes nearby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomoy_Point_Light

Yeah that just seems like they're rebuilding it for historical value...probably not the best use of emergency economic stimulus funds.

Perhaps by uninhabited, they were referring to the lighthouse (thus making it pointless to do work on its living quarters) - not sure - just throwing ideas out there.

I think you're giving them too much credit.
They just thought that the whole lighthouse project it sounded bad enough and used it as a whipping boy, without bothering about the details.

um, I HIGHLY doubt either of them conducted the research or wrote the list.  I'd be surprised if they gave it more than a quick read.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, that's the point they should be making Cynic.  Whether or not an island is inhabited has very little to do with whether or not there are dangerous waters and shipping lanes nearby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomoy_Point_Light

Yeah that just seems like they're rebuilding it for historical value...probably not the best use of emergency economic stimulus funds.

Perhaps by uninhabited, they were referring to the lighthouse (thus making it pointless to do work on its living quarters) - not sure - just throwing ideas out there.

I think you're giving them too much credit.
They just thought that the whole lighthouse project it sounded bad enough and used it as a whipping boy, without bothering about the details.

um, I HIGHLY doubt either of them conducted the research or wrote the list.  I'd be surprised if they gave it more than a quick read.

Wikipedia: "After the opening of the Cape Cod Canal in 1914, most vessels bound from south of the Cape to the Boston area took the shorter and safer route through the canal, so there was much less traffic past the light and the light was deactivated in 1923."

So, if you're asuming Coburn and McCain didn't read the list, are you assuming that whoever put it in the bill to begin with also assumed that it was a working/needed lighthouse?

[Lunar]

Whoah, I flipped my position on this issue mid-thread and I forgot to notify everyone (although not on earmarks as a whole or Coburn's intelligence).  

The quoted bit on the topic post looks ignorant of what the purpose of lighthouses have.  Upon further research it is not a bad overall position on this individual item, but it is expressed like a fool wrote it [not uncommon in Senators' press releases].  The project doesn't seem that overpriced -- some seismic retrofits on one of the houses an organization I'm on the board of runs just cost us $8m, and that's in a major population center and not on a deserted island where costs are even higher.

In retrospect I fired too soon defending the project though and I was wrong to defend this individual project.  Cynic's quick research pretty much immediately proved the project more or less relatively useless in terms of emergency federal economic stimulus spending...I don't see the economic output from a historical site compared to building a decent public transportation system in this country

[Mechaman]

Whoah, I flipped my position on this issue mid-thread and I forgot to notify everyone (although not on earmarks as a whole or Coburn's intelligence).  

The quoted bit on the topic post looks ignorant of what the purpose of lighthouses have.  Upon further research it is not a bad overall position on this individual item, but it is expressed like a fool wrote it [not uncommon in Senators' press releases].  The project doesn't seem that overpriced -- some seismic retrofits on one of the houses an organization I'm on the board of runs just cost us $8m, and that's in a major population center and not on a deserted island where costs are even higher.

In retrospect I fired too soon defending the project though and I was wrong to defend this individual project.  Cynic's quick research pretty much immediately proved the project more or less relatively useless in terms of emergency federal economic stimulus spending...I don't see the economic output from a historical site compared to building a decent public transportation system in this country

I'm pretty disappointed that Coburn didn't include that fact in the argument. He's a crazy moralfag but he is usually well versed when it comes to fiscal issues. I guess I was wrong.

[paul718]

I don't know anything about this particular project, but the fact that earmark spending is miniscule doesn't make it okay.

Earmarks aren't spending. They are allocations of money that has already been approved for spending. Spending is the problem, not earmarks.

I don't like earmarks because they're used as a political tool to buy legislative support and to benefit members of the Appropriations Committee.

[cinyc]

Well, that's the point they should be making Cynic.  Whether or not an island is inhabited has very little to do with whether or not there are dangerous waters and shipping lanes nearby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomoy_Point_Light

Yeah that just seems like they're rebuilding it for historical value...probably not the best use of emergency economic stimulus funds.

That is the point they're making - the project is a waste.  The government is rebuilding the lighthouse so that a handful of people can stay overnight on summer weekend nights for $200 per room - plus whoever else is rich enough to own or hire a boat to visit an out-of-the-way during the day.

[Linus Van Pelt]

All right, fair enough, it's not so ridiculous if the lighthouse is decommissioned. But really, you'd think they would mention this is the blurb.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't know anything about this particular project, but the fact that earmark spending is miniscule doesn't make it okay.

Earmarks aren't spending. They are allocations of money that has already been approved for spending. Spending is the problem, not earmarks.

I don't like earmarks because they're used as a political tool to buy legislative support and to benefit members of the Appropriations Committee.

If earmarks aren't used, then unelected bureaucrats will decide how the money gets allocated. It won't be any better.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

All right, fair enough, it's not so ridiculous if the lighthouse is decommissioned. But really, you'd think they would mention this is the blurb.

It's in the footnote link.  They probably figured that anybody who cared enough to scrutinize the details of the list would also read the footnotes.