Opinion

Our view: Stimulus signs provoke a controversy


Published: June 29, 2009

Considering the billions of taxpayer dollars that will be wasted through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as "the stimulus," it's easy to lose another $300 in the shuffle.

That's the cost of each of the ubiquitous green and orange signs popping up everywhere a stimulus project is under way.

But what really irks U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., is that the signs, a little pat on the back for the legislators who brought home one of the biggest pieces of bacon ever, are required for stimulus funding.

"To spend taxpayer dollars on signs touting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at each and every project does nothing for households who are struggling to get by or for those who've lost their jobs during the economic downturn," Gregg said in a statement.

The senator has filed legislation that would prohibit the signs.

Not only are the signs merely stroking legislators' already expansive egos, it's getting difficult to find someone to produce them.

Derry, N.H., public works Director Mike Fowler told reporter Eric Parry it's up to him to make sure a project to improve the Meadowbrook community water system has a white sign indicating it's a stimulus project. If there's no sign, Derry won't be reimbursed for the $40,000 project, he said.

Fowler did find a vendor — the state Department of Corrections sign shop. The department will make the 3-by-5-foot sign, at a cost of $318. The federal government will reimburse the town for the cost of the sign.

If Gregg's sign-banning bill fails and they must remain, let's have a little truth in advertising.

We like the suggestion of one of our Web commenters that the signs should read: "This project paid for by your unborn grandchildren."