Bad spending — except for us?

Last week marked the anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that controversial spending package intended to buoy the nation's economy.

Iowa projects have been awarded more than $2 billion in stimulus-funded contracts, grants and loans. Stimulus spending has so far reportedly funded more than 9,000 jobs in this state.

But opponents still question the impact of the massive $787 billion package. Iowa's December unemployment rate was 6.6 percent, up two percentage points from the year before. Reporting errors and inconsistencies have brought exact job creation numbers into question.

“Somehow (the idea) the stimulus has been working is just a fallacy,” U.S. Rep. Tom Latham, R-4th District, recently told a reporter.

In talking with us this week, Fifth District Congressman Steve King's spokesman Matt Lahr called the package a “grab-bag of taxpayer-funded subsidies, pet projects and added bureaucracy” that has failed to create jobs or generate economic growth.

We wouldn't go that far - there is some evidence that stimulus spending has furthered worthy projects and helped stabilize a faltering economy - although we do remain deeply concerned by the growing federal debt. We appreciate concerns by Republicans who opposed last year's stimulus bill and are wary of another round.

Yet it seems disingenuous for those lawmakers to then turn around and advocate for projects requesting stimulus funding. It doesn't seem right to have it both ways.

Democrats berated Republicans last week for their apparent flip-flops, naming Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and King to the Democratic National Committee's “Republican Recovery Act Hypocrisy Hall of Fame.”

Democrats called King out for announcing $570,000 in stimulus funding for the U.S. Highway 20 widening project last spring. Lahr, King's spokesman, told us that project was funded through the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which finally passed after a firestorm of debate over spending increases and thousands of controversial earmarks.

Lahr defended the congressman's earmark, saying Highway 20 had been one of King's priorities since taking office.

“At the time he submitted that request, he had no idea what that bill would look like,” Lahr said. He said it's misleading for Democrats to criticize King for a request he made in 2008, before stimulus talks even began.

But also troubling is denouncing “pet projects and taxpayer-funded subsidies” while defending projects in your own district. So, too, wholly dismissing the effectiveness of spending that brought tangible benefit to your district - action you'd been advocating for years.

Democrats also criticized Grassley this week for sending letters of support to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for applications for stimulus money after he voted against the act, as was reported earlier this month in the Washington Times. Grassley's staff told us it's been the senator's long-standing policy to support any such application from his constituents: “If an Iowan asks for it, he will forward it to the federal agency with his support,” spokeswoman Beth Levine told us this week.

“Iowans pay taxes and the senator believes that if there is federal money that is going to be given, they should receive their share of the money that's being given out,” she said.

Again, a nice sentiment, but one that begs the question: How can spending be bad, unless it's for your own constituents?

It's not a new question for either party, but it is among the increasingly important ones as our lawmakers continue to dig us more deeply into debt.

“The question Iowa's voters have to answer is: Was it a mistake to vote against these investments or a mistake to take credit for them?” Rep. Bruce Braley, D-1st District, responded when we asked for his reaction.

Maybe more to the point, how do lawmakers reign in spending when there is so much to gain from bringing home the bacon?

“There is too much politics and not enough action in Washington,” Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-2nd District said.

Easy to say, maybe, when the heat is on the opposition, but on the mark nonetheless.

Is this how we want Congress to work?