
As one of the "Clintonites" cited above, I'll try to clarify since this
is not a case of Clinton's "dishonesty." (I won't necessarily defend him
on other issues.)  

There were NEVER any specific projects included in the Community
Development Block Grant portion of the President's proposal.  Congressional
Republicans, in an effort to discredit the stimulus package, selected what
they felt were silly sounding projects from a wish-list of POTENTIAL 
projects prepared by the US Mayors' Conference before the stimulus package
was ever proposed.  (The document in question was designed to pressure the
White House to increase the size of the block grant proposal submitted
to Congress.  It didn't work.)

The $2.56(?) billion proposed in the stimulus package came nowhere close
to covering the total estimated cost of the original wish-list.  If it
were passed, communities would have to select which projects to fund and
at what level.

In the case of Spokane, Wa., Tom Foley's home district, no one ever
expected to be able to refurbish a local swimming pool (one of the 
Republicans' examples) FROM THE FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE STIMULUS
PACKAGE since the estimated cost of doing so exceeded the total 
amount of block grant funds the city would receive from the stimulus 
package for ALL projects.  

The plan, instead, was to use the money on public housing construction
and remodeling to cope with a severe housing shortage.  (Yup, there are
places where that is true.)  The swimming pool improvements were near the
bottom of a long list of priorities prepared by the city.  The $3 million
or so to be received would cover only a few of the most pressing
priorities.

If the block grants are cut from the stimulus package, it is these projects
that will be affected by the lack of funds.  And that is why the Clinton
administration has been publicizing the issue.

A final point.  One may or may not like community block grants.  It is
worth noting, however, that Congressional Republicans' opposition to them
is new.  Since the Nixon administration, Republicans have generally 
supported such grants as an alternative to targeted federal spending,
arguing that local governments are far better able to determine spending
priorities than "Washington bureaucrats."  

Is it clear now?  Or is this all too complicated to understand?

jsh