Austin: We're officially in Bizarro world; I have proof!

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 17:35

In perusing our scandelously awful local paper, we learn how tin cup urbanism will come to Austin in President Elect Obama's trillion dollar pork program:

It asks for $1.5 million to create 15 jobs to replace light bulbs with more efficient ones across the city.

Let me get this straight: We're going to spend $1.5 million to hire 15 people to CHANGE LIGHTBULBS!!!

$1.5 million/15 = $100,000 per person hired. Apparently, Austin's Wizards of Smart think this is a good use of taxpayer money. I've heard of paying people to dig holes and fill them, but this is just silly.

Mugatu Indeed.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Cahnman's blog

Comments

Do you think it is possible

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 17:36.

That the $1.5 million might include the cost of the new high tech lightbulbs?

I suppose

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 19:09.

Athough its still a rediculous use of money.

No, it is good management

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 20:00.

The new high-tech lightbulbs pay for themselves in two ways - they consume less electricity, and they last longer and therefore need to be replaced less often. It is good management.

No, it is ridiculous.

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 21:20.

It is purely government make-work ridiculous pork. Why is it necessary to create new jobs to change lightbulbs? Don't public buildings in Austin already have a maintenance staff to take care of things like changing lightbulbs when they break? Fine, you can kinda-sorta argue that replacing all the lightbulbs is a good idea. But not to hire more people to do the job. That is insane. I have to wonder,Nando, why are you always so quick to defend the state?

I'm not defending the state

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 23:30.

I'm defending the light bulbs, the technology behind them, and the economic and environmental rational for using them. If you want to play know nothing on this and harumph that all this new-fangeled nonsense will never come to anything, be my guest.

Actually I'm defending the light bulbs too.

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 03:52.

Great news that the city of Austin wants to become more environmentally sound and save some money too by using more efficient lightbulbs. Kudos to them! They have my sincere and heartfelt appreciation. Well done, city fathers of Austin!

Here's what I'm complaining about: the transparent and laughable attempt to portray this as some form of "economic stimulus" which of course necessitates hiring FIFTEEN additional people when every public building doubtless already has maintenance staff charged with things like changing lightbulbs. It is make-work nonsense.

What say you?

anyone thought about disposal?

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 20:07.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cfl_bulb#Mercury_emissions

Watch this cost a lot more in a few years than the light bulbs, and take more manhours

We're doing this mistake all over again, I fear.

Not a relevant concern

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 20:29.

First, we don't know what high-tech light bulbs they are using - they may be using LEDs, not CFL, and therefore there is no issue at all.

Second, the mercury content in CFLs is now extremely low and is coming down all the time.

Third, if the CFLs are replacing standard flourescent bulbs, the total mercury reduction is immense, becasue the standard flourescents use much more mercury.

Fourth, even if the CFLs are replacing standard incandescents the net effect is positive.. The biggest source of mercury polution is coal-fired power plants. Because of their higher efficiency, the CFL prevents more mercury from entering the atmosphere than is contained in the bulb.

I've often said on the "coal= mercury" issue

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 20:35.

If a power plant in Scranton is putting mercury hundreds of feet into the air and spreading it about, that's the EPA's problem.

If one of the light bulbs breaks and I have a kid in the house, that's my problem.

Statistical analysis seems to miss the minor point of atmospheric dissipation v. household disaster.

Then again, my old employer got sued for financing a botched lead paint abatement. So maybe I know too much.

Bizarro World

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 20:56.

The fact that we're discussing mercury disposal in the context of an "economic recovery" package proves the bizarro world nature of this entire proposal.

You nailed it.

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 21:57.

This isn't "economic stimulus". This is "throw shovels of money at any idiot left-wing idea and create a few make-work jobs while we're at it".

You're funny

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 21:59.

n/t

Thanks :)

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 22:21.

n/t

The City of Austin isn't installing them in your home

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 21:05.

1) The City of Austin isn't installing them in your home.

2) If you drop one and it breaks, open a window, and the hazard is gone

I'd advise them not to try...

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 21:35.

...lotz of people in this city own guns.

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here

Submitted by opendna on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 19:27.

to change your lightbulbs."

Go ahead...

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 04:58.

...make my day.

Kiss my grits Will Wynn.

sure

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 21:36.

guess Underwriters Laboratory is off-base then

and what happens when they don;t break and get to the landfill?

Because it's where the money is

Submitted by WoodbridgeVa on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 22:14.

Why is every proposal offered by local state or federal agencies now a job creating stimulus?

Why was every proposal offered by the same agencies between 2001 and 2008 a national priority homeland security enhancement?

Why were they all technology leveraging intitiatives to empower stakeholders between 1993 and 2000?

Why did Willy Sutton rob banks?

Because it's where the money is.

Just once I would like to see a government agency at any level put forward an otherwise reasonbly good proposal that could improve service deliver to constituents without wrapping it in whatever fad is fashinable at the time.

Replacing lightbulb may actually be a good idea that will save taxpayer's money over time; but don't tell me it creates jobs for maintanance workers, or improves lighting in unsecure facilities or allow stakeholders to interact more effectively. Just tell me it will bring down the town's electric bill by 3 x the cost and allow federal grant money to the city to be put to better use.

You nailed it

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 04:15.

n/t