-
Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Special Report
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast
One of Barack Obama’s pet projects when he was a Senator is going to cost taxpayers $1 billion dollars based on current projections.
From the Politico
It became a sort of poster child for fiscal responsibility — a clean-coal power plant in Illinois that was one of then-Sen. Barack Obama’s pet projects.
Democrats insisted they were so serious about keeping pork out of the stimulus bill that it was President Obama himself who blocked the FutureGen project from the massive spending package.
“It shows that we’re serious about it,” Brendan Daly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman, said at the time. “The speaker said it, and the president said it: There will not be earmarks in this bill.”
Earmarks? Perhaps not. But funding for FutureGen? Absolutely, to the tune of $1 billion.
The Department of Energy on Friday announced that the FutureGen project is on track after all, committing federal stimulus money to advance the project to its next stage. One reason: It was the only shovel-ready project that fits the requirements of the stimulus bill.
Administration officials and the project’s other big backer, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), insist that’s not an earmark at all, as promised — because the stimulus bill doesn’t specifically name the FutureGen project as a recipient of the money.
But others say that’s a distinction without a difference — that FutureGen is merely an earmark by another name, a project that had powerful patrons, funding straight out of the stimulus bill and requirements for the money targeted so narrowly that only a few projects would fit the bill.
The funding is attracting harsh criticism from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who will release a report Tuesday blasting 100 wasteful projects in the federal stimulus spending. The FutureGen project is on his top 10. “FutureGen is the most expensive earmark in history,” Coburn said. “And it is one of the most egregious examples of stimulus dollars being handed out on the basis of politics rather than merit or need.”
This is just another big government spending project with dubious benefits but should buy Obama and the Democrats some votes in 2010.
Post #2120
Share This
About the author
Don Irvine is Chairman of Accuracy in Media. He is active on Facebook and Twitter. You can follow him @donirvine to read his latest thoughts.
3 Comments for Obama to Spend $1 Billion on FutureGen
Just try to remember -it is not “Obama” who is going to spend this money -it is Obama who is going to spend OUR money -to that sum!
As long as we pretend the government somehow has money to spend we forget that ALL spending is OUR money -and it will be derived by taxing US!
If only more people would recognize and remember this fact!
Yogi 13
Re: Post 2;
Obama is not doing the “spending”; the “government” is doing the spending – and all spending bills must originate in the U.S. House and, ultimately, be approved by both houses of Congress. While Obama may lobby the congress to approve the FutureGen program and the funding for it – it takes a collaborative effort of several hundred people, i.e., staffers, U.S. reps and senators to actually put the proposal into action.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s a worthy expenditure. Cleaning up the emissions coming from burning coal can have nothing but positive benefits to all.
From what I recall, GOPs were big backers of the idea of “clean coal” during the last presidential campaign ??? So – let’s see if we CAN clean up the emissions from coal-fired power generating plants, coal-fired industrial furnaces, etc.
Most of the air pollution in my state comes from coal-fired electricity generating plants. If we can clean up the emissions, we can use more coal, less oil!