In article <C5L5uM.IsF@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes: >This was in Wed. WSJ. > >[start] >The white house, seeking to mount public pressure on GOP senators, bombarded >news outlets in some senator's home states with news releases warning that >certain projects may not be funded if the $16billion stimulus bill isn't >passed. > >None of the projects mentioned are actually in the bill, rather they are >part of a wish list that may be funded from the $2.56 billion in >Community Development Block Grants. > >... > >[end] > >I could have sworn I heard a bunch of Clintonites going on and on, raving >about how dishonest it was that the Rebublicans were taking items from this >wish list in order to ridicule this bill. Now that Clinton is using that >same list in order to garner support for the bill, are you guys going to >do the honorable thing and say that Clinton is being dishonest.  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