Hey! At this rate we could save 131,166 jobs!
$6m went to PR firm? !
Well, to be fair, it wasn't just any PR firm. It was the one to whom Hillary still owes nearly $1 million.
My thoughts as well!
The same PR firm who financed Hillary's campaign and she owed tens of millions to. Hillary had a huge campaign debt after the election. All that she owes is paid back to this firm. That is who the debt is owed to.
You know the phrase "if it sounds almost too good to be true, it probably isn't"?
I have formed a corollary:
"If it sounds too awful to be true, it probably isn't".
I find a very strong tendency for news articles - especially when they're pared down two or three times to just a sound byte - to send a very skewed message.
I saw that too.
IMO, if somebody needs to spend millions of $ on PR, then they are not fit to serve in public office. Why does the electorate keep electing such people?! Do people somehow expect a different (better) outcome?!
Meanwhile small and medium size business can't get loans from banks - who got generous amounts of capital from the taxpayers and near zero-cost money from the Fed?!
What is wrong with that picture?
What is the very skewed message?
Most of the money went through to pay for TV, radio and print ads as part of the program intended to help prepare “unready” households for the DTV transition. There were 3 jobs created or saved in the PR firm itself, plus an unknown number of jobs created or saved further "downstream".
I am skeptical that the sum-total benefits from that $6 million is nothing more than the preservation of exactly 3 jobs.
A typical US election consumes hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign money. Six million is tiny compared to that.
Why would you compare the two? This six m. was an example of taxpayer stimulus money, redirected by what appears to be cronyism to campaign functions.
Follow the money honey.
DC is all about the money.
don't look at the trillions behind the curtain continue to fight over abortion and gay marriage.
Because the typical voter votes for who ever the TV ads tell him/her to vote for. They are kept focused on the none money issues like abortion and gay marriage so they never think about money issue. This allows the moneyed interests to do as they wish.
Or to quote Lenin "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
That's about as efficient as government will ever be.
Of course it appears that way. The article was written with that slant.
4.5 million was actually awarded, not the full six. Someone was going to get the contract, did you really expect the Obama administration to give it to Haliburton?
The most important information is not even mentioned... did they fulfill the terms of the contract?
It appears that way because of the items asserted as fact in that article.
I don't expect the money to be blatantly given to the 'friends' of anyone.
See the OP Topic re stimulus money. This is not a simple appropriations issue, not that cronism is valid in that more general case either. The money spent was here was part of the http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf" [Broken], which tells us what the law considers most important:
A Manhattan PR firm claiming it saved 3 jobs for 4.5 million does not qualify.
The article was written to evoke the very emotion you are experiencing.
As I recall, they did a very good job letting people know about the switch from analogue to digital. Someone was going to get the contract. I could argue that awarding it to Penn's firm saved the nation 1.5 million. I could, but I won't because I don't have but a small fraction of the facts. So I am not going to make the same mistake the OP did.
As for whether or not the contract falls under the auspices of the RRA... I believe it would fall under category #3 and #4.
I've stated a criticism based on the statements of fact in the article. You have no idea what emotion I am 'experiencing.'
This is the only part at all relevant to the thread. The metric for success in all of those enumerated goals is whether or not it in the end creates jobs. Job creation at ~$1.1 million each is hardly successful, nor is creating jobs at a Manhattan PR firm catering to the powerful in line with "assisting those most impacted by the recession."
Oh well, sorry about your luck.
I don't remember you screaming about the Billions being given to Haliburton and Black Water through secret no bid contracts.
Every now and then consider actually staying on topic
You want to define what constitutes stimulus to suit your argument. However it is defined in the bill. Hiring a PR firm for important public relations may not be the best fit for the definition. But it still fits.
My point is still the same. They were going to hire someone to do it, and the money was going to come from the government. I don't know what was behind the decision making and neither do you. If it was decided that the public education about the digital switch was inadequate, then the an easy fix was to simply use some of the stimulus money.
Big deal. It is not like they are giving billions to a contractor who failed to even provide clean water to our soldiers.
Separate names with a comma.