Highway Stimulus Signs Cost Too Much

A quote often attributed to Sigmund Freud (but never actually authenticated as far as I can tell) was said to be in response to an inquiry as to the latent sexual meaning and significance of dream symbols. The question that is said to have been posed related to Freud's smoking many cigars during the day; Freud responded, "Sometimes, a cigar is simply a cigar." While the quotation may not be authentic, the basic meaning is clear. Sometimes, especially in writing political essays, we read far too much into actions, assuming that they are motivated by malice rather than the result of rational behavior and thought. Sometimes there is no evil or occult motive. We are free to agree or disagree with the action but it is wrong to assume the worst.

When I was a young man in Massachusetts, virtually all highway construction projects had large signs erected proclaiming, "Massachusetts is building a great highway system. Paul A. Dever, Governor." It has been a tradition to have incumbents of local offices remind voters of the progress the latter are enjoying - and paying for - and of the selfless politicos to whom thanks and votes should flow!

So when stimulus money began to go to the states and begin to put people to work at construction sites, the Federal Highway Administration issued an advisory about the placement of signs:

On March 3, 2009 President Obama made the commitment that all projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will bear a recovery emblem to make it easier for Americans to see which projects are funded by the ARRA. To meet this commitment, FHWA strongly encourages agencies to use the economic recovery signs on all projects funded by the ARRA.

The guidelines for the sign placement made clear that regulatory, warning, and guide signs had a higher priority than the economic recovery signs and that the signs must not interfere with safety concerns and were not ,themselves, overtly political

On the national level, some objections have been made that the signs are, as stated by New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg stated,

"simply for political self-interest, and it's high time we stop using stimulus dollars to fund them, and instead use these dollars for their intended purpose of creating economic activity".

So while there is some partisan issues involved, Georgia, Texas, Florida, Virginia and New York all have decided not to install the signs, which come with a lengthy and detailed number of specifications, and theses states are, apparently, motivated by fiscal concerns and not politics.

A spokesman for the Georgia Department of Transportation stated that the cost of signs for the nearly 120 road projects in that state amounted to over $280,000 and that the expenditure was attracting criticism. The money, David Spear explained, could be best spent on creating more jobs and funding more projects. The Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, is hardly a fan of President Obama's administration nor is Rick Perry, Texas's Governor, who also banned the signs in that state. On the other hand, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is the head of the Democratic National Committee and that state had, from the start, decided to not use any stimulus money on signs.

Florida's Charlie Crist is a Republican who had undergone much criticism from his own party by supporting the stimulus package, openly appearing with the president at town halls in support of the Recovery Act. Governor Crist has decided not to use the signs; New York, a largely Democratic leaning and voting state, stopped requiring them a few months ago after it was embarrassed by reports that contractors were asking for more than $4,000 for the largest signs.

There isn't any doubt that some of the opposition to the signage is partisan. The official administration position is that the signs are a part of the Obama commitment to transparency in government. As Jill Zuckerman, the Federal Transportation Department spokesperson said, "We think the signs promote transparency and accountability - so taxpayers can know where their money is being spent and on what, but the important thing is that the projects be sound, well run and job creating."

It seems to me that the signs are useful and certainly common place; but it also seems that the darn things just cost too darn much. And here I agree with many of those who are objecting. Nothing to do with Democrat or Republican, for some of us the cost seems extravagant in a time when budgets are being strained to the limit.

Keep the signs but at $4,000 a pop, something is wrong!