S.C. governor takes a hike: Stimulus trail

That map is about as fuzzy as this explanation.

He wants us to focus on the "avid sportsman" part and ignore the "I took off for a week without telling anybody because I was pissed off" part.

Is this some sort of weird suicide ritual, going to kill yourself on a trail paid for by your arch-nemesis and his stimulus? Maybe Sanford won;t kill himself, but still...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Wonderful! The Appalachian Trail is going to get $665,000 in stimulus cash! And this is going to boost the economy by …?
.
Oh, I see. Never mind. The Appalachian Trail is one of those “infrastructure” projects designed to boost the economy. After all, in case of an emergency, the folks out in the eastern states will need a way to sent food, medicine and other needful supplies to distressed areas by pack animal. One can never be too prepared. Shame on me for doubting the wisdom of spending money on a hiking trail.

John W, do you think the $665,000 is going to be laid as $1 bills on the trail? No, the $665,000 is going to be paid to contractors to do work on the trail. Those contracfors will be buying supplies and paying workers to build the improvements. Those workers and suppliers will then fiurther spend the money they recieve. Then, when they are done, the improved trail will be more attractive to hikers. More of them will come to walk the trail. Those jikers will spend money to get there. Those hikers will spend money in the little towns along the way. That all boosts the economy.. I know that a hard concept, but maybe when you are out of grade school you'll understand it. Until then leave the political discussions to the adults, ok? Now run out and play on the nice playground that boosted your local economy when somone paid to build it.

You gotta to hand it him. He's found a way to revive his possible future campaign. I await the foliage write-ups from the Sanford expedition. Plus, he's managed to de-throne the old Republican family values shenanigans to second place, where it belongs, by literally skipping out on Father's Day in favor of real problems, like the economy.

Econ 101, that's boosting the economy, eh? Borrowing money at a given interest rate, absorbing the costs of administration and distributing it? That's not a formula for building wealth. That's a net loss of wealth. It's an unsustainable scheme with a government borrowing/spending to solve one problem, while creating another. That's the problem. Governments don't create wealth. They move it around, at a net loss when taking into account administrative costs and interest rates. If I take a cash advance on my credit card, would you say I am stimulating my own economic situation? I would say I am not, am getting in over my head with debt, and would only resort to that if I had to. The same reasoning should apply to the federal government; park trails don't qualify. There is no magic money tree. This is real money that has been borrowed, is subject to interest rates, and will have to be paid back. The federal government should take that seriously, read any spending (borrowing) bill to make sure it is absolutely necessary, and not spend money we don't have on park trails.

John W, the Appalachian Trail, like many of our natural parks, provides an economic boost to towns all along it's length. Many thousands of people walk portions of the trail every year. They buy supplies, they stay in hotels, they eat in restaurants, they buy local craft items. Not to mention the more indirect spending that trips to the trail encourage, like tents, sleeping bags, backpacks etc.This can only happen where the trail is well maintained, and where it has appropriate facilities.

I'd recommend he book "A Walk in the Woods" by Bill Bryson for more information on the trail, those who walk it, and what they bring to the nearby economies. Our parks do make an impact on our economy. Don't dismiss that impact because it's focused on small towns and small businesses, rather than on big coporations and big businessses.

If the legislative session makes this guy have to "escape to clear his head", what would a terrorist attack do to him?

This "story" is this week's Y2K: all media hype, no substance.

"Borrowing money at a given interest rate, absorbing the costs of administration and distributing it? "

Herbie H., apparently you've run away from the same playground as John W. Us adults know that much corporate expenditure is based on borrowing money at a given rate and absorbing the costs of administration and distributing it as well. That's why there are things called corporate bonds. Businesses don't pay cash for everything. They take on debt for expenditures as well. I know they don't mention those in grade school, but that's the way things run for real in the adult world. You'll understand that when you become a big boy. Now run back to the swingset that the government shouldn't pay for, OK?

Econ 101.....don't let the pugs lead you astray from the topic on this thread......another nutty pug does a crazy stunt that puts his state's security in jeopardy.......I wonder why Johny and Herby are so quick to change topics?

The federal government should take that seriously, read any spending (borrowing) bill to make sure it is absolutely necessary, and not spend money we don't have on park trails.

Posted by: Herbie H. | June 23, 2009 1:32 PM

Well, then if Sanford was so against stimulus spending, like that for the trail, he should be true to his beliefs and not use the trail. He likes having the amenity of the trail there for his use, but apparently he thinks it should be maintained by forest elves, not the National Park Service.

The fuzzy thing is how did a trace of the cell phone show Atlanta when the trail is over 150 miles North of that city and way out of the way from Sullivan Island.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | June 23, 2009 2:36 PM
.
Number One: I am not a “pug,” although I am sure you still revel in being a ‘rat.
.
Number Two: Neither Sanford nor his love for the outdoors is interesting. The article above, however, does mention that the Appalachian Trail is going to get $665,000 in stimulus money. Thus, my comments are relevant to the only part of the story that’s interesting enough to deserve a comment. So, if that’s a change in topic, now you know why.

Econ 101, your post is not responsive to mine. I'm not arguing that corporations don't take on debt or have administrative costs. That is a straw man you created, and I hope you win your fight against it.

To: Econ101 & Lou:
.
This is a make-work project designed to keep very few people employed for a very short time. Assuming that no money is spent on materials, each worker gets paid minimum wage and all of them works forty hour work-weeks, $665,000 is roughly enough to keep forty four (44) people employed for one year. Since the first two conditions are rather unlikely to be true for the entire project, substantially fewer people will get hired or retain employed because of it, and/or fewer people will be employed for as long as a year. That is neither job creation nor protection. While it may keep the workers in pretzels and beer for a while, it does nothing to insure that the jobs they have will be sustained for more than a short period of time.
.
Two basic axioms of economics are that: (1) the economy is boosted by production, and (2) that it is depleted by consumption. Governments do not produce. They consume. Spending money on make-work jobs like this involves much more consumption than production. In this case, the expenditure doesn’t even have the virtue of supporting production - as would have been the case had the money been used to refurbish roads, bridges or some other instrumentality of commerce. I would have hoped that the “jobs” the President was attempting to create or protect would have been the kinds that keep people employed indefinitely through the growth of industry. If the “jobs” the president hopes to create or protect are no better than those of seasonal stevedores, and only to keep such people employed, there is no production and no economic growth as a result. Hence, there is no way that creating or preserving these kinds of jobs will significantly help the economy.
.
The alternate argument - i.e. that bringing such a paltry work project to a trail that traverses the entire length of the original 13 colonies is going to stimulate businesses - is a joke. It is speculative, at best, to suggest that a significant number of additional hikers will find an improved trail more attractive. Most hard-core nature people would probably find the trail more than adequate in its current condition. Hiking, as a pastime, is not something that becomes more attractive because of man-made improvements to trails. Besides, we are currently in a recession (and will be for some time to come), gas prices are high, and hiking is a leisure activity which many people can ill afford. In addition, along the entire length of the trail, from Maine to Georgia, only a small handful of towns (really wide-spots in the road) are close enough to benefit from any added money coming into the vicinity of the trail. (It wouldn’t be much of a nature trail in the eyes of nature lovers if it intersected too many towns.) In which case, the added “commerce,” either directly or indirectly from this make-work project, is likely to be evanescent and negligible. It is nothing compared to what might have happened had the same money been invested in production.
PS - Econ101: I’m sorry that you, being all grown up and everything, didn’t understand Herbie’s argument and can’t figure out why your analogy to corporate borrowing doesn’t fly. You see, corporations borrow to improve their capital - i.e. the means and materials of production. That, in turn, gives them the wherewithal to produce on someone else’s dime. They don’t borrow to consume. Borrowing to consume would lead to ruin. That was Herbie’s point. What we have here is borrowing money for consumption, and that doesn’t help. You should hang out at the playground. You might learn something.

When will John W have the guts to admit that he is a staunch die hard Republican? He attacks Democrats constantly. He never defends them. He's always available to defend any Republican politician from any criticism at all. It's really kind of pathetic how he hides behind his lame "Who me? I'm not a Republican" nonsense all the time. Does he really think he's fooling anyone? Or is he just trying to fool himself?

John W, I'm not going to even bother to reply to most of your post because it refers to nothing I said, even though I disagree with most of it as usual.
However I will take issue with your rather snide and elitist "pretezels and beer" crack. Look I know the guys who maintain the trail aren't important like attorneys who have time to post on blogs all day, but a job for a full year for those guys is nothing for a snob like you to sneer at. I'm sure every one of those guys puts in a much harder day than you have in a very long time, if ever. I will freely admit that's true for me.Their work has great value. It is no more "make work" than the you shuffling legal papers around all day, Their work brings joy to poeple for years to come. Their work helps people see some of the great natural landscapes of our beautiful land. Their work keeps people safe. Their work supports businesses in 13 states. Does your "make work" job live up to that John? Is it worth it to keep you in "pretzels and beer"? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sure for you it's well earned "pate and Champagne", right?.
I will also take issue with your dismissal of the importance of the park system, and your presumptions about the trail and the people who use it. Not everybody who uses it are hard core hikers. Not everybody who uses it want to avoid towns and civilisation entirely. Many who use it use the small towns along the way as rest stops, and as opportunities to see parts of america they haven't experienced before, to meet new and interesting people and to see how others live. They know they can learn from others, even the people with make work jobs in unimportant places, unlike some people. Tourism is commerce. The national parks are a means of production for that commerce. along with a great many other benefits. We neglect them at our own loss.

Seriously read the book John. Your perception of the trail is far from correct. Try to leave your snobbishness and arrogance behind when you read it, you'll learn more that way.

Observer, if John W.'s posts are slanted or inaccurate, you should have no trouble pointing out the flaws in his analysis. You don't even try, probably because you know you will get pantsed if you argue with him. Instead, you try to make it personal, and do whatever you can to lower the dialogue to something you can handle. That's what is pathetic.

Do you think BO is thinking to himself - what a great place to hide Joe Biden?

Econ 101 and Lou,

When you get to Econ 102, you will learn top ask this question - Will the marginal cost (that would be the $665,000) bring in a greater amount of marginal tax revenue (such as sales tax from all the goods sold by the shops along the trail) or reduce gov't outlays (such as unemployment expenditures for the workers on the trail. What is the incremental number of hikers that this $665,000 will bring to the trail? Will hikers stay away from the trail if this $665,000 is not spent?

* * * * *
Posted by: Lou | June 23, 2009 6:55 PM
.
This last post of yours is so typical of you, and yet so very wrong for the very reason you are so often wrong.
.
You always start off with the worst assumptions about me. This time, you make the assumption that I think poorly of workers who ear their pretzels and beer, or that I think them unworthy. Then, after you convince yourself that I’m some kind of elitist, snob or anti-civil libertarian, you get a chip on your shoulder and mount your self-righteous steed in defiance.
.
This is both misguided and false. I’m a pretzels and beer kinda’ guy myself. I was raised in a blue-collar home with the belief that hard work will make my life better. Therefore, I don’t look down on these people, think of them as unworthy, or believe they don’t deserve any better. To the contrary, my disgust for make-work programs like this is not that it is wasted on basic labor jobs. My disgust comes from knowing that society and the government (or governments) can do a whole lot more and a whole lot better for the same “pretzels and beer” guys than are lining up for these kind of make-work programs. You could have found that message in my last post if you really tried. I was talking about how much better it would be to create permanent jobs in industries that produce. Doing better for these same guys could be accomplished by creating more of those kinds of production jobs. Nowhere did I suggest that someone wielding a shovel now couldn’t or shouldn’t get one of those better jobs.
.
But, no: Instead of getting the point, you had to blind yourself to the obvious, and then attack me for whatever you happen to imagine about me. This time it’s because you are hallucinating that I am snobbish and elite. You do this so often, Lou, that you are actually becoming a caricature of yourself.
.
And with regard to the value of my work, I have to ask: How valuable is freedom? Hard manual labor is good for the soul. I think we agree on this. I did plenty of it as I worked my way through school. But I have set more than a few people free from jails and prisons as the result of what you call my “paper shuffling” - that is, paper shuffling that makes me work long hours into the night sometimes. Is working against the government to help others into the free air and daylight really worth nothing? You aren’t worth the gravity that holds you down if you think so.

* * * * *
Posted by: Observer | June 23, 2009 4:31 PM
.
Observer, not only is Herbie H. correct again (as usual), you make the unfounded assumption that only a Republican would find fault with Democrats. That is simply untrue. I am a registered Libertarian. Libertarians have numerous differences of opinion with Democrats, and it has nothing to do with the Republican Party.
.
You see, we really believe in freedom as a first principle. We believe that personal government and personal responsibility are the best forms of government. To the extent organized external government is necessary to maintain social order and safety, it represents human failure. We also know that the larger a government gets, the more it operates at the expense of human freedom. That is why we prefer to keep external government to the minimum necessary to keep us safe. Smaller government fosters individual initiative and the greatest range of freedom. This is conducive to the kind of innovation that has kept society flexible, adaptable and safe. Thus, to us, a large, intrusive and expensive government is no blessing. To the contrary, it comes at a great cost of human liberty, fosters the kind of kind of personal irresponsibility that is antithetical to human freedom, and saps motivation and innovation out of its subjects.
.
These views are, of course, diametrically opposed to 90% or more of the progressive Democrat platform that operates on the assumption that big, expensive, and intrusive government is a panacea for all the troubles we face. I think it is both foolish and arrogant for anyone to believe that government has all the answers, or even better answers, to the troubling question of our day. It is exactly the conceit, arrogance and nearsightedness that will be the downfall of this country if we continue to be led down the progressive garden path. That’s why I can’t defend Democrats.
.
I should also add that the Libertarian view is not shared by most of the Republican Party. Too many Republicans are interested in promoting an agendum that also depends on the big, “New Deal” model of government currently in use. Some of them, like some Democrats, are also more interested in order than in freedom. That’s why I can’t abide by the Republican Party any more either.

I confess...I did not read the other lengthy posts (done that daily for too long, same stuff). I think everyone should read Wonkette for a funnier take on this whole mess. (AND too bad Carl Hiaassen did not find him first! It would have made an even more hilarious take on it I am sure!)

Sorry John W, make all the claims to a blue collar background you want, calling someone's hard, productive, work a "make work job" that only keeps them in "pretzels and beer" is dismissive and insulting, not only to the workers, but to the product of their work. Construction is an industry that produces. Maintenace workers are as vital as those production workers you idealize so. But again, you return to you elitist, misguided and ignorant postition that a guy wielding a shovel isn't doing a worthwhile job.

Your background doesn't matter John. It hasn't prevented you from becoming a sneering, self-important, elitist who looks down at the men and women who work hard all day long to build and maintain parks and other facilities that benefit everyone. No, there work has little value. Hard manual labor isn't just good for the soul John, it is vital for our economy and our society. Clearly you don't understand that. Yet when someone implies that your work might not be as valuable as you like to tell yourself it is, well you don't like that do you John? No, can't say anything that John does isn't of the highest importance. I'm not hallucinating your snobbishness John, It's plain in your writing. It's plain in your statements.

* * * * *
Posted by: Lou | June 24, 2009 6:45 AM
.
Wrong.
.
1. Some construction is productive, and some is not. Building or repairing roads, sewers, bridges, buildings, and other stuff necessary to economic activity is productive. Refurbishing a nature trail is not. It is entirely consumption. Or, maybe, you can tell me how it adds to the total value of goods and services in the economy? If it doesn’t make production possible or add to the total value of goods and services in the economy, it is not productive. You just don’t want to admit that this project is no different than one of the make-work projects FDR threw together just to keep people employed back in the ‘30s and ‘40s. Those kinds of projects did not lift the economy. We escaped from the Great Depression only after the federal government invested in production in earnest.
.
2. The project doesn’t meet the goals of the Stimulus Bill. The Stimulus Bill was sold to us as a means of providing jobs while making - at least - infrastructure improvements. The word “infrastructure” refers to basic, physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, bridges, sewers, power and water supplies, communications, schools, post offices, etc.) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise. These things contribute to the economy because economic activity would be difficult or impossible without them. Improvement of the Appalachian Trail doesn’t fit the bill. It is a trail. It isn’t an essential part of the system like a bridge or a road. Thus, defending this project is to defend a fraud - like so much of the stimulus bill has turned out to be.
.
Remember that things are not business as usual. We are in a serious economic recession right now. To the intelligent but suggestible listener, hearing the words “serious economic recession” should indicate that our priorities should be focused on restoring our economic viability. It’s rather hard to enjoy a nature trail if people are broke or starving.
.
3. The project is really unnecessary. There are thirty different volunteer organizations dedicated to the conservation of the Appalachian Trail, including those who raise money for the purchase of land and those who work for its physical improvement. So, spending federal money on the Appalachian Trail is kind of like one of the other projects paid for by the stimulus bill. You know, the one involving the painting of a fence around an abandoned pool? It’s a waste of money.
.
4. Again, despite your inability to see correctly, my comments were not directed at the workers or even workers in general. My comments were directed at those who would spend all this money on make-work jobs when they could have done better for the same workers. I wish the people who needed one of these jobs could get a better job - and it’s a shame that those in power couldn’t find a better way to invest the stimulus money to facilitate the creation of permanent productive jobs to make that happen. If you can find these to be the thoughts of a sneering, snobbish elitist, you can find a sneering, snobbish elitist in anyone’s words. There is no hope for you. You are now just a caricature.

Harper's Ferry completed some work on their part of the Appalachian Trail. They believe it brings some 250,000 visitors annually. If everyone spent 5 dollars on the way there, in any way, that's 1.2 million dollars. The work on parks is done mostly by volunteers, but without money to initiate and continue projects (the research, the planing) the amount of volunteers or on the job experience would diminish; as would the chances of someone being able to get some type of experience in order to get a better job. The people who plan/research/survey have a reason to work. The people who construct have a reason to work. The volunteers have a reason to work. The people that provide the materials to construct have a reason to work. Plus, if you're not constructing trails, you have to maintain them. In normal times, and especially hard times, the parks can't fall by the way side; their maintenance make them attractive for people to visit. In hard times, people can't afford the luxuries they're used to...natural recreation becomes a necessity, or should become a viable alternative.
/
Personally, I understand that roads to parks may parallel, but roads are slightly more dependable.
/
Unfortunately, I think we need less roads. In a day and age where you need a car to get from point A to point B, and with less people being able to afford homes (forget about cars car insurance gas), people are forced to stay local. We've expanded our society so much, that it's naturally forcing itself back to a sustainable size.
/
(I think of it as a federal stimulus of the parks and recreation budget; it adds to their budgets. The stimulus amount is very small in relation to their actual budgets. So yeah, if we are talking about "serious economic stimulus," not exactly-- seriously taking the economy problem. That's not to say it's a waste. There is room to debate if it's the best solution to the economy problem. although I ten to think it depends how you value infrastructure v. recreation)

John W, all I can say is that no one will ever accuse you of being either humble or self-aware.

I will think of you next time I am enjoying a nice day in a National Park, and how pathetic and stunted your life must be that you can't understand the value of all the "make work" in those parks.