Monday, January 11, 2010
Another Post On Federal Stimulus Jobs
I happened upon the blog post, Pity the Poor Private-Sector Workers, by Robert Higgs of The Independent Institute and I thought I'd post it here because it covers the same theme as my most recent article but from more of a macro perspective.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Problems of Creating Jobs With Government Grants
I have a friend, Christa, who often has interesting stories to tell in response to my columns and she's given me permission to post any of them here that I think my readers might enjoy reading.
In the past, before she knew better ;), Christa was a government school board member and here's a story she tells in response to my column asking whether increased government jobs are the answer.
Creating a job with a government grant is one of the worst things any government official can do. It will come back to haunt everyone involved.
Say the government wants to give you a grant to hire a Reading Recovery teacher for two years. That sounds fine and dandy, right? Free services for our kids (at least that's the way everyone looks at it 'cause that money grows on trees and all).
So what happens at the end of two years? You have a bunch of parents used to getting Reading Recovery for their kids, and now they suddenly think their children can't survive without it.
And inevitably that teacher who you hired with the grant just happens to be one of the good ones (maybe the only good one you can find in your entire district), but she also happens to be the lowest person on the seniority scale. You have to let go of the only decent teacher you've come in contact with in 10 years, and ALL the parents are furious. You're the horrible, mean board that can't manage to find the money to keep the pleasant Reading Recovery teacher once the grant runs out.
But you're still stuck with those 30 grumbly NEA-militants who just won't go away.
And of course everyone knows you could come up with that Reading Recovery teacher's salary if only you cared about the children. Or what's even worse is when over half the board just can't stand to be accused of not doing all they can "for the children" so they keep the Reading Recovery teacher and just keeping spending your local district into oblivion with no regard for the local taxpayers because it's "all about the children."
Just saying what could happen if one were to create a job with a government grant.
In the past, before she knew better ;), Christa was a government school board member and here's a story she tells in response to my column asking whether increased government jobs are the answer.
Creating a job with a government grant is one of the worst things any government official can do. It will come back to haunt everyone involved.
Say the government wants to give you a grant to hire a Reading Recovery teacher for two years. That sounds fine and dandy, right? Free services for our kids (at least that's the way everyone looks at it 'cause that money grows on trees and all).
So what happens at the end of two years? You have a bunch of parents used to getting Reading Recovery for their kids, and now they suddenly think their children can't survive without it.
And inevitably that teacher who you hired with the grant just happens to be one of the good ones (maybe the only good one you can find in your entire district), but she also happens to be the lowest person on the seniority scale. You have to let go of the only decent teacher you've come in contact with in 10 years, and ALL the parents are furious. You're the horrible, mean board that can't manage to find the money to keep the pleasant Reading Recovery teacher once the grant runs out.
But you're still stuck with those 30 grumbly NEA-militants who just won't go away.
And of course everyone knows you could come up with that Reading Recovery teacher's salary if only you cared about the children. Or what's even worse is when over half the board just can't stand to be accused of not doing all they can "for the children" so they keep the Reading Recovery teacher and just keeping spending your local district into oblivion with no regard for the local taxpayers because it's "all about the children."
Just saying what could happen if one were to create a job with a government grant.
Are Increased Government Jobs Really The Answer?
HARBESON: With jobs, sometimes less really is more
Last month, I wrote a flippant column about the information on the federal government’s stimulus Web site. It should be obvious now why I chose not to dig deeper — I was waiting for this paper to send a reporter out to do the work for me.
I’m glad I waited because it took him six articles to report on the local impact. If I had continued to study the Web site, my hourly rate would have surely dipped further into negative numbers. Let’s use the time he saved me to discuss the jobs created.
I noticed that many of the reported jobs created are government jobs. I don’t understand how this helps. A government job is not productive in the sense that any new wealth occurs, so the private sector has the burden of supporting yet another government employee.
This means less money is available for private businesses to hire the productive labor which pays for the government job. So how does adding another government job stimulate the economy?
I’m puzzled when people applaud these jobs. If we see a couple struggling to support their kids who suddenly decide to solve their problem by creating more kids, would we applaud this?
Some of the stimulus funds spent on new local government jobs will be paying salary costs for the first three years. This is bad enough because in three years the money will have to come from somewhere else. But what’s even worse is the government-mandated requirement that these jobs can’t be eliminated for at least 10 years!
By creating these government jobs, citizens have just been forced to pay for them for seven more years after the stimulus funds run out. It doesn’t matter if our local community decides something else is more important in a few years. We’ve just been completely handcuffed by the decisions of a few politicians.
I’m particularly interested in these jobs because this is exactly what Clark County government has done in the past. The time period involved in these requirements makes it easy for these jobs to get so embedded in the system that everyone conveniently forgets what happened. Then when future budget problems occur like we are seeing at the county level currently, we are told they don’t have enough money for all the “government services” and that we “must maintain them.”
This is how government grows.
Some of the reported jobs were in the private sector and upon first thought this sounds better. However, looking closer, these jobs created are completely dependent on the government funding to exist. So is this any improvement over the government jobs? Is it helping to build an economy able to sustain itself?
I also noticed that stimulus money was spent locally on giving raises to people who already have government jobs. This “stimulus” only increased future costs for those jobs that already existed before the stimulus at a cheaper price. How does this help the unemployed?
There was another example of stimulus funds being spent locally on people who already had the government jobs before the stimulus package. Stimulus funds paid for these employees to get training for certifications. However, these certifications were not needed at all for their job. Can someone tell me how this helps? Is it because a person was paid to give them the needless certifications?
Finally, a local politician actually rationalized stimulus spending because it created work for the reporter. But if we want to create work for reporters, it’s much more stimulating, not to mention cheaper for the taxpayer, when famous married people just get caught having flings.
SIGLINE: Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson thinks it’s very stimulating when other people do the work for her.
Last month, I wrote a flippant column about the information on the federal government’s stimulus Web site. It should be obvious now why I chose not to dig deeper — I was waiting for this paper to send a reporter out to do the work for me.
I’m glad I waited because it took him six articles to report on the local impact. If I had continued to study the Web site, my hourly rate would have surely dipped further into negative numbers. Let’s use the time he saved me to discuss the jobs created.
I noticed that many of the reported jobs created are government jobs. I don’t understand how this helps. A government job is not productive in the sense that any new wealth occurs, so the private sector has the burden of supporting yet another government employee.
This means less money is available for private businesses to hire the productive labor which pays for the government job. So how does adding another government job stimulate the economy?
I’m puzzled when people applaud these jobs. If we see a couple struggling to support their kids who suddenly decide to solve their problem by creating more kids, would we applaud this?
Some of the stimulus funds spent on new local government jobs will be paying salary costs for the first three years. This is bad enough because in three years the money will have to come from somewhere else. But what’s even worse is the government-mandated requirement that these jobs can’t be eliminated for at least 10 years!
By creating these government jobs, citizens have just been forced to pay for them for seven more years after the stimulus funds run out. It doesn’t matter if our local community decides something else is more important in a few years. We’ve just been completely handcuffed by the decisions of a few politicians.
I’m particularly interested in these jobs because this is exactly what Clark County government has done in the past. The time period involved in these requirements makes it easy for these jobs to get so embedded in the system that everyone conveniently forgets what happened. Then when future budget problems occur like we are seeing at the county level currently, we are told they don’t have enough money for all the “government services” and that we “must maintain them.”
This is how government grows.
Some of the reported jobs were in the private sector and upon first thought this sounds better. However, looking closer, these jobs created are completely dependent on the government funding to exist. So is this any improvement over the government jobs? Is it helping to build an economy able to sustain itself?
I also noticed that stimulus money was spent locally on giving raises to people who already have government jobs. This “stimulus” only increased future costs for those jobs that already existed before the stimulus at a cheaper price. How does this help the unemployed?
There was another example of stimulus funds being spent locally on people who already had the government jobs before the stimulus package. Stimulus funds paid for these employees to get training for certifications. However, these certifications were not needed at all for their job. Can someone tell me how this helps? Is it because a person was paid to give them the needless certifications?
Finally, a local politician actually rationalized stimulus spending because it created work for the reporter. But if we want to create work for reporters, it’s much more stimulating, not to mention cheaper for the taxpayer, when famous married people just get caught having flings.
SIGLINE: Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson thinks it’s very stimulating when other people do the work for her.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Someone Should Bench These People
HARBESON: Jeff council gets bad marks for bench rules
Jeffersonville government officials and a few City Pride committee members who want to get rid of advertising benches on city sidewalks sure worked hard to imagine possible problems that could be caused by these benches.
One invented problem was driver distraction. Evidently they are very concerned that people will look up from texting while driving, get distracted by a particularly fascinating bench advertisement and wreck their car.
Then we heard from the bench bigots — those who want all the benches to look exactly the same. I guess these people wake up in the middle of the night with the song “Signs” blaring in their heads, the lyrics nightmarishly changed to “signs, signs, everywhere signs, blocking-out-the-green-metal-scenery, breaking my government-controlled-mind.”
Well, they can all rest easy on their government-approved benches now, because the Jeffersonville City Council passed an ordinance full of new regulations for advertising benches.
Why didn’t they just ban these benches outright? Well, the pesky U.S. Constitution got in their way because commercial messages are constitutionally protected free speech.
Of course, if you’re paying attention, you know the Constitution never stops governments from doing whatever they want. It’s always manipulated so the government gets the upper hand. That’s why the law says they can’t ban it, but they can control it. And again, if you’re paying attention, you know that when you control something, it’s pretty easy to get rid of it.
As proof, city resident Mike Cozzin, who runs an advertising bench business, tried to tell them no one would buy advertising under these regulations and he likely would go out of business, but they didn’t care. This fellow resident, their own neighbor, complied with every previous request the city made about his benches for the past 16 years. He cooperated with every change they demanded. But none of that mattered.
They could have stopped to consider how their action might harm others. But they didn’t.
Talk about getting a sign. It could not have been clearer if they had all given him the one-finger salute. Their action clearly said, “Gee, your family is just not a part of our awesome ‘comprehensive’ plan.”
However, let me give one shout-out to Councilman Ron Grooms, because he voted no on the third reading. He’s at least willing to consider consequences of his actions.
Cozzin thought perhaps he could be grandfathered in since he’s complied like a good little boy. But they told him they had to deny grandfathering, and it’s the Constitution’s fault because the Constitution demands everyone be treated the same. This is what happens in a free country, of course, because if you’re going to decrease freedom, well, you have to decrease freedom to everyone equally.
Wait, I mean except for the government itself. The ordinance’s details on the specific regulations and requirements for benches happen to exactly match the city’s current benches. Amazing isn’t it?
I’m kind of surprised other small business owners did not take up for this guy. Were they afraid if they did, then the council would vindictively ban sandwich boards, something many downtown businesses use on the same sidewalks? Were they quiet because the advertisements on the benches were for their competitors? I just don’t know.
Cozzin was doomed from the beginning if he believed that government property is property the people all “own” together. This is just not true and simple logic tells us so.
Someone ultimately has to have control, and in this case, it’s the same people who prefer conformity and think they know better than others what is aesthetically pleasing.
Even if it harms their neighbors.
SIGLINE
Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson is often told to sit on it. But her butt just refuses to conform.
Jeffersonville government officials and a few City Pride committee members who want to get rid of advertising benches on city sidewalks sure worked hard to imagine possible problems that could be caused by these benches.
One invented problem was driver distraction. Evidently they are very concerned that people will look up from texting while driving, get distracted by a particularly fascinating bench advertisement and wreck their car.
Then we heard from the bench bigots — those who want all the benches to look exactly the same. I guess these people wake up in the middle of the night with the song “Signs” blaring in their heads, the lyrics nightmarishly changed to “signs, signs, everywhere signs, blocking-out-the-green-metal-scenery, breaking my government-controlled-mind.”
Well, they can all rest easy on their government-approved benches now, because the Jeffersonville City Council passed an ordinance full of new regulations for advertising benches.
Why didn’t they just ban these benches outright? Well, the pesky U.S. Constitution got in their way because commercial messages are constitutionally protected free speech.
Of course, if you’re paying attention, you know the Constitution never stops governments from doing whatever they want. It’s always manipulated so the government gets the upper hand. That’s why the law says they can’t ban it, but they can control it. And again, if you’re paying attention, you know that when you control something, it’s pretty easy to get rid of it.
As proof, city resident Mike Cozzin, who runs an advertising bench business, tried to tell them no one would buy advertising under these regulations and he likely would go out of business, but they didn’t care. This fellow resident, their own neighbor, complied with every previous request the city made about his benches for the past 16 years. He cooperated with every change they demanded. But none of that mattered.
They could have stopped to consider how their action might harm others. But they didn’t.
Talk about getting a sign. It could not have been clearer if they had all given him the one-finger salute. Their action clearly said, “Gee, your family is just not a part of our awesome ‘comprehensive’ plan.”
However, let me give one shout-out to Councilman Ron Grooms, because he voted no on the third reading. He’s at least willing to consider consequences of his actions.
Cozzin thought perhaps he could be grandfathered in since he’s complied like a good little boy. But they told him they had to deny grandfathering, and it’s the Constitution’s fault because the Constitution demands everyone be treated the same. This is what happens in a free country, of course, because if you’re going to decrease freedom, well, you have to decrease freedom to everyone equally.
Wait, I mean except for the government itself. The ordinance’s details on the specific regulations and requirements for benches happen to exactly match the city’s current benches. Amazing isn’t it?
I’m kind of surprised other small business owners did not take up for this guy. Were they afraid if they did, then the council would vindictively ban sandwich boards, something many downtown businesses use on the same sidewalks? Were they quiet because the advertisements on the benches were for their competitors? I just don’t know.
Cozzin was doomed from the beginning if he believed that government property is property the people all “own” together. This is just not true and simple logic tells us so.
Someone ultimately has to have control, and in this case, it’s the same people who prefer conformity and think they know better than others what is aesthetically pleasing.
Even if it harms their neighbors.
SIGLINE
Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson is often told to sit on it. But her butt just refuses to conform.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
My Point: Government Force Is Not The Best Solution
HARBESON: The reasons behind this gift of a column
Several people asked me what I planned to write about this week since my column would be published on Christmas Eve. They wanted to know if I had a gift in mind for my readers in honor of the season.
This really irritated me. Until they pointed this out, it hadn’t really occurred to me that I might need to add more people to my Christmas list. I thought I was finished shopping.
I wasn’t sure what to do. Were people really expecting a gift? I mean, what would readers possibly want from me?
Maybe I could get away with a homemade gift. Let’s see, what would be really cheap and fit the relationship? I know, something made out of newspaper! Maybe I could fold some of those cool sailor hats I made as a kid. Or create something using paper mache.
Then I remembered I’m not crafty. That’s why I write a column.
So then I thought maybe I could just write a gushy, sentimental column. One of those columns chock full of sugary-sweet sappiness. A column dripping with syrupy emotion.
But that would cost a fortune because the sugar overload would certainly make me sick and we all know the cost of health care these days.
Finally I realized there are really only two possible gifts I could offer:
1. Continue sharing my opinions.
2. Stop writing the column.
Now, although I think some people’s idea of the best Christmas gift ever would be for me to do a No. 2 and simply shut up, I’m afraid I’m just not that generous. This left me with one choice — to keep sharing my opinions.
There are some good reasons as to why this is the best gift I have to offer. For one, I know you won’t shoot your eye out so I have no liability issues. There are a few others though.
I will do my best to analyze, question and investigate issues from my skeptical perspective of government as a solution. Until I see people moving away from using government force to solve problems, I’ll continue to look for local issues and actions to serve as real-life examples to help make my points.
I will refuse to accept any rationalizations and excuses for why we should let certain groups of people be held to different standards and be able to use force, especially when those rationalizations and excuses come from those inside the system that uses the force.
I will continue to respond to anyone who challenges me. Consider it your gift to me really because it helps me clarify my thinking even further. I want to hear your logical, reasoned arguments so I can test them against my theories, principles and values. It’s an excellent way to move forward in my personal lifelong learning process.
I hope one of the best reasons why this column is a good gift is my refusal to accept that what we have now is the best we can do. I will not and cannot pretend that government is good. When more people begin to understand this enough that we start to see real changes, I’ll have my perfect Christmas gift.
My Christmas wish and message is really very simple: When we have a problem to solve, I want our first thought to be clutching our neighbor’s hand, and not a government gun.
I hope you enjoy this gift all year long. I sincerely offer it with humility, joy and always a touch of humor. I hope you accept it, but either way I’m going to have fun writing.
Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson wore a newspaper hat made from past Sunday’s edition and now has Lindon Dodd’s face (web readers, he's another columnist) tattooed on her forehead.
Several people asked me what I planned to write about this week since my column would be published on Christmas Eve. They wanted to know if I had a gift in mind for my readers in honor of the season.
This really irritated me. Until they pointed this out, it hadn’t really occurred to me that I might need to add more people to my Christmas list. I thought I was finished shopping.
I wasn’t sure what to do. Were people really expecting a gift? I mean, what would readers possibly want from me?
Maybe I could get away with a homemade gift. Let’s see, what would be really cheap and fit the relationship? I know, something made out of newspaper! Maybe I could fold some of those cool sailor hats I made as a kid. Or create something using paper mache.
Then I remembered I’m not crafty. That’s why I write a column.
So then I thought maybe I could just write a gushy, sentimental column. One of those columns chock full of sugary-sweet sappiness. A column dripping with syrupy emotion.
But that would cost a fortune because the sugar overload would certainly make me sick and we all know the cost of health care these days.
Finally I realized there are really only two possible gifts I could offer:
1. Continue sharing my opinions.
2. Stop writing the column.
Now, although I think some people’s idea of the best Christmas gift ever would be for me to do a No. 2 and simply shut up, I’m afraid I’m just not that generous. This left me with one choice — to keep sharing my opinions.
There are some good reasons as to why this is the best gift I have to offer. For one, I know you won’t shoot your eye out so I have no liability issues. There are a few others though.
I will do my best to analyze, question and investigate issues from my skeptical perspective of government as a solution. Until I see people moving away from using government force to solve problems, I’ll continue to look for local issues and actions to serve as real-life examples to help make my points.
I will refuse to accept any rationalizations and excuses for why we should let certain groups of people be held to different standards and be able to use force, especially when those rationalizations and excuses come from those inside the system that uses the force.
I will continue to respond to anyone who challenges me. Consider it your gift to me really because it helps me clarify my thinking even further. I want to hear your logical, reasoned arguments so I can test them against my theories, principles and values. It’s an excellent way to move forward in my personal lifelong learning process.
I hope one of the best reasons why this column is a good gift is my refusal to accept that what we have now is the best we can do. I will not and cannot pretend that government is good. When more people begin to understand this enough that we start to see real changes, I’ll have my perfect Christmas gift.
My Christmas wish and message is really very simple: When we have a problem to solve, I want our first thought to be clutching our neighbor’s hand, and not a government gun.
I hope you enjoy this gift all year long. I sincerely offer it with humility, joy and always a touch of humor. I hope you accept it, but either way I’m going to have fun writing.
Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson wore a newspaper hat made from past Sunday’s edition and now has Lindon Dodd’s face (web readers, he's another columnist) tattooed on her forehead.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
I Seem To Have Hit A Nerve
My most recent column has really generated some interest. I find it fascinating because I really didn't say anything new or different, I just happened to give an example of government spending that a lot of people around here happen to like: Christmas Light Displays. You can go to the newspaper's site for the column itself to read some of the comments.
HARBESON: ’Tis the season of taking taxes ... and giving lights
Some people really get into Christmas decorating and end up with lights and displays covering nearly all of their property.
I’m way too lazy to put up much for Christmas, but I do appreciate a nice display when I happen to see one and I’m sure it’s fun for those who enjoy spending their time and money this way.
But when a government spends taxpayer money on such things, it raises lots of questions. For example, is it really necessary or even proper for the city of Charlestown to force taxpayers to fund a huge Christmas light display just because Mayor Bob Hall has a need to say his is bigger?
Now, Charlestown certainly isn’t the only government entity spending money on seasonal decorations, but they are actively seeking attention by claiming to be Southern Indiana’s largest.
The city administration’s actions have definitely put the spotlight on this type of government spending, so I guess Mayor Hall is getting his Christmas wish to be noticed.
When the mayor says, “Our desire is to be known as a Christmas town,” I wonder who he’s referring to when he says “our.” Does he mean himself and other government employees? If so, the next question is whether or not he should be making such decisions.
Or is he trying to make a claim that every single resident shares this desire?
This cannot be the case, because we know he didn’t ask each and every person in order to get unanimous consent that this is the city’s desire. I can guarantee you that residents have varying opinions.
Of course, the only reason it matters is because coerced funds were used to help pay for the display. No one knows how much, though, because Clerk-Treasurer Donna Coomer said they have to wait until the invoices come in, which won’t be until January.
But maybe this makes some sense for a city that wants to be known as a Christmas town. After all, lots of people go overboard buying things on credit and have to wait until they get their January bill to see what they spent, too.
Neither Coomer nor Mayor Hall wanted to give an estimate on the taxpayer cost, which is kind of funny since they seemed proud to know and share other estimated numbers relating to the display, such as the number of lights and how many people attended the initial lighting ceremony.
Mayor Hall defended spending taxpayer money when he said, “People pay for an image and advertising everywhere.”
I think he forgot that those people — unless he’s talking specifically about other governments — don’t forcibly take other people’s money to do so. They spend money they’ve earned from providing a product or service that customers voluntarily pay for.
This particular spending of government money is particularly troubling since the Christmas spirit is supposed to be all about the virtue of giving. What image is really on display when Charlestown’s officials think it’s perfectly fine to spend other people’s money that was taken by government force in order to put up decorations to celebrate Christmas?
Rarely has so much light glared so garishly on the truth.
The biggest disappointment in this situation has to be that in addition to the taxpayer funding, volunteers donated many hours of their time and local businesses also donated money, which means this decorating could have been accomplished totally through voluntary means.
What a wonderful message the people of this city could have sent if they had developed and created a totally voluntary display of lights and decorations. That would have really made Charlestown truly a Christmas city.
SIGLINE:
Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson once auditioned for a living Christmas tree but was turned down because they said she was a dim bulb.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Recovering From Recovery.gov
COLUMN NOTES: In reality, I found a lot of information on this site. But it only brought up about 1000 more questions so I just decided to have a little fun with it. It did generate several comments on the newspaper's website though which you can read here.
HARBESON: The bumpy road to Recovery.gov
In my continuing effort to help my readers learn about government, I often get myself into really scary situations. Last week, when I read that entire government-issued press release and found myself deep within the bowels of the Indiana Code, was only the latest example of how far I’m willing to go.
Fortunately, after a nice long shower and a bit of debriefing with the son-in-law, I was able to come out of that experience feeling strong. As a matter of fact, I felt especially full of courage this week. Son-in-law apparently agrees, because he did confirm that I was full of it.
Anyway, I felt so good that I decided it was time to tackle the big one. Of course, I’m referring to Recovery.gov, the Web site that lists in detail everything you never wanted to know about the federal stimulus plan.
I was a bit leery about doing this though. I heard reports of people visiting the site who soon became so overloaded with detail that they just ran away screaming, never again to utter a single coherent word of complaint about the federal stimulus funds.
Yes, it is a scary Web site. The first thing I noticed upon entering was lots of numbers — ID numbers, award numbers, code numbers, order numbers and numbers referring to the other numbers.
Oh, and of course plenty of “dollars awarded” numbers. I suspect the dollars awarded are what scares most people away because hardly any of us learned to count that high in math class.
The site has so many numbers, there’s a special link called Clarification of Codes just to, well, clarify the codes. I bravely opened the huge “Clarification of Codes” page and it sent shivers up my spine.
I decided that maybe I really didn’t need to read up on the meaning of phrases like “IDV Procurement Instrument ID.” I hope you don’t think less of me.
I will say that there was one particularly pleasing part of this page which was the pronouncement of the phrase, “Principal Place of Performance.” But that’s only because I like alliteration.
I was about to just give up gathering anything useful for this column when I saw an interesting link at the top of the page. It was a link to the Google Translate page.
Yes! I knew Google could rescue me because Google always helps me out of sticky situations when I need information. So I clicked the link.
Once on the Google translator, though, I immediately became confused again. Oh sure, I had many languages I could click on for the “translate from” field, but all I could see were actual meaningful languages developed from humans throughout history. I looked down the list at least five times and could not find the selection I was looking for. “Government Gobbledygook” was simply not there.
I do not understand that at all. I mean, they had languages like Estonian and Swahili; Maltese and Persian. Oy vey, they even had Yiddish! I hate to kvetch but that really takes some chutzpah not to include Government Gobbledygook, doesn’t’ it?
Maybe the site was just broken that day.
I was ready to leave Recovery.gov, but I felt responsible for sharing something useful in this column, so I took one more look and saw a tab titled “Where is the Money Going.” Now, of course I didn’t fall for that one. I knew that if I clicked on that link, I’d get sent down a big black hole.
Listen, I’m willing to do a lot for you people, but I’m not going to go that far.
SIGLINE:
Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson is slowly recovering from her Recovery.gov research ordeal. She hopes to be back to her old self next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
