’)
Just how fast stimulus money is getting out the door to states has been a running partisan squabble of late. Democrats see a raging river. Republicans see a pool of molasses.
But the Obama administration seemed to get one up last week with the announcement that it had reached a closely watched milestone: All states and territories had obligated at least half the highway money they got in the stimulus bill—and they did it before the deadline.
The announcement could have used an asterisk.
Although states technically met the June 29 deadline laid out in the law, 13 still hadn’t obligated 50 percent of their total highway funds at the time of the announcement, according to our analysis of Department of Transportation data. Nevada, for one, had committed only 35 percent.
Why the discrepancy? As it turns out, there’s more than one way to count.
To give the economy a quick shot in the arm, Congress wrote a “use or lose it” provision into the stimulus bill, which passed in February. States got 120 days to choose projects and report how they’d spend half their money. Missing the deadline meant forfeiting unobligated money to other states.
But the law was precise in defining what counted toward half: only money controlled by state governments. Stimulus funding that the states pass on to big cities and urban areas wasn’t counted.
That formula leaves out a large share of the total $27 billion in highway funding flowing through states—30 percent of it, to be exact. The money is primarily for repairing roads and bridges.
When all the money is considered—including dollars aimed at cities and urban areas—only 37 states had obligated 50 percent or more of their stimulus transportation funds, based on the Transportation Department’s most recent project list, dated June 26.
Of the $16 billion obligated so far, the bulk of the money—71 percent—has gone for paving projects, followed by 11 percent for bridge construction and improvement.
We’ve put together our own chart based on the June 26 project list, and we’ll keep updating it as the stimulus progresses. For comparison, here’s the DOT’s tally of June 29 that served as the basis for the administration’s count.
Recovery Tracker
Stimulus Spending Progress
ProPublica’s Unofficial Guide to Recovery.gov
How to Background Check Stimulus Companies
Eye on the Stimulus
Unless otherwise noted, you can republish our articles and graphics (but not our photographs) for free. You just have to credit us and link to us, and you can’t edit our material or sell it separately. (We're licensed under
As a newspaper reporter, this story appalls me. It is so typical of the sloppy crap that passes as an investigation. It sounds great—struggling bank in which Sen. Inouye is a major shareholder gets aid after senator’s staffer calls FDIC.
But when you actually read the story, the evidence to prove the case does not exist.
Yes, a staffer for Inouye made an inquiry, but based on this story it was a routine inquiry on behalf of a constituent. There is no evidence that either the FDIC knew that Inouye wanted action on behalf of the bank and no evidence that he pressed the case. In fact, based on your story, he simply asked for an FYI on whether an application for TARP funds had been received.
So you deceptively smear the senator all to make yourselves look good. Disgusting. This kind of tainted, no-evidence report calls into question all of your work. You needed proof that Sen. Inouye used his influence and have none, but went ahead anyway.
It’s kind of like the U.S. Justice (Injustice) Department and its deceitful and disgraceful smear of Sen. Stephens. Maybe he did something wrong, maybe not. We’ll never know. Because the evidence is so tainted and so useless. Likely he did nothing wrong, but people like you smear him anyway. There are lots of reasons to oppose a Sen. Stephens — his honest graft approach to the federal budget should have been slapped down years ago — but not to falsely tarnish his reputation.
And that’s what you have done to Sen. Inouye. No real proof, just a smear job.
Jeremy Lazarus