Sign(s) of The Times

I love stories like this, because they help to bring things into perspective. Anyone want to guess how much money was spent on signs declaring the use of Stimulus Money?

On the road leading to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC there's a 10' x 11' road sign touting a runway improvement project funded by the federal stimulus. The project cost nearly $15 million and has created 17 jobs, according to recovery.gov.

However, there's another number that caught the eye of ABC News: $10,000. That's how much money the Washington Airports Authority tells ABC News it spent to make and install the sign – a single sign – announcing that the project is "Funded by The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and is "Putting America Back to Work." The money for the sign was taken out of the budget for the runway improvement project.

Does anyone remember the website put up by the Obama camp right after the election. "The Office of The President Elect," that was it. It was a website designed to look official, while having no actual use. These signs are the same thing; it's like making an announcement to state that you are going to make an announcement.

ABC News has reached out to a number of states about spending on stimulus signs and learned the state of Illinois has spent $650,000 on about 950 signs and Pennsylvania has spent $157,000 on 70 signs. Other states, like Virginia , Vermont , and Arizona do not sanction any signs.

One state brags it posts signs but manages to keep the process cost-effective. The Tennessee Department of Transportation boasts, "There are a total of 324 signs statewide for a total cost of $12,931 and an average of $37.67 each." The reason for the small cost, they say, is that their signs are small-- about equal to a speed limit sign.

In response to questions by ABC News, Jill Zuckman of the Department of Transportation said, "The best estimate is that states have spent about $5 million of the $28 billion spent on road projects on signs – or less than .02 percent of overall project spending."

Wouldn't actual road projects be more effective than signs? I'm just saying...

Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) has joined the chorus of Republican outrage over stimulus signs and claims at least $20 million has been spent on them. He told ABC News, "I think it's a bit of an oxymoron to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, borrowed money, on a bunch of signs to tell them how we are spending their taxpayer money."

Schock's office provided ABC News with administration guidance on stimulus signs sent to him from a constituent. The document, dated March of 2009, outlines the "General Guidelines for Emblem and Logo Applications." The Recovery Act logo which was provided not only looks oddly similar to the Obama logo from the 2008 campaign but its stated purpose, according to the document, is to act as "a symbol of President Obama's commitment to the American people to invest their tax dollars wisely and put Americans back to work."

All in all it's not what it seems. To claim that road projects are creating jobs is a misnomer it only creates work. When most people think of job creation, they think of jobs that people will have unless they are fired or quit (careers). The only jobs that can be created from road projects are temporary jobs. Once the road is finished everyone goes home. But in the president's defense; he never said anything about careers, just "jobs".

I wonder if they are going to spend even more money and give the road workers shirts that say, "My job was funded with Stimulus Money and all I got was this T-Shirt".

This is government waste on parade. It's o.k. though because it's just a little waste right?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.