Stimulus update

President Obama is promising to start shoveling even more money out the door while Vice President Biden admits that some of that spending is going to be simply wasted. So where is that spending going anyhow?

The New York Times takes a look at some of the funds being devoted to weatherization. I suspect that most people assume that weatherizing mainly involves insulating buildings against cold out -- at least that is what I thought. But the NYT article notes that much of this spending is actually being spend in "hot states" where the money is being used to ensure that cold air stays in. Why is the money being spent in this fashion? Well, politics:

The stimulus money is being divided according to a formula devised in 1995 after members of Congress from the hot states complained that they received too little money through the weatherization program. The formula has been used just twice, since it is invoked only in the rare years that the program financing exceeds a threshold, now set at $233 million.

J. Bennett Johnston, a former Democratic senator from Louisiana who pushed for the new formula at the time, said more people were dying from extreme heat than extreme cold. “This was not so much an energy saving proposal; it was more of an equity proposal, one that gave attention to public health,” Mr. Johnston said, adding that it would save energy.

Now, the formula favoring hot states is being used just as the government makes its biggest investment in weatherization.

Johnston, by the way, is out to lunch, with the data indicating that more people die because of excess cold than heat. The article then provides us with the poster child for this weatherization initiative:

As Florida’s weatherization money climbs to $176 million over the next couple of years, from $5 million this year, the scene that played out recently at Jessica Langston’s double-wide mobile home in Crawfordville is likely to become more common.

A large truck, parked by a palm tree in the front yard, was pumping fiberglass insulation into small holes bored in the corrugated metal roof. Glaziers were sticking tinted film to the windows to dull the sun’s heat. And cool air was streaming through the floor vents, much stronger now that the metal ducts beneath the floor had been sealed tight and the air-conditioner unit outside had been serviced.

“Before, it would just be hot, unbearably hot,” said Ms. Langston, 27, who had covered the windows with tin foil and taped a leaky window shut when she moved in last summer, pregnant with her third daughter. Her monthly electricity bills can top $400.

We've got this, apparently unmarried, woman with two kids and a third on the way who lives in a double-wide. Taxpayer money is being spent to provide her with a cooler home. While she can afford to have multiple children she apparently can't afford to properly insulate her home, leaving the rest of us on the hook.

The article continues:

Officials here say that the program has cut electricity use and costs. A review of the utility bills of nine Floridians whose homes were recently weatherized showed varied savings. A couple of bills were halved, with monthly savings of up to $178; most customers saved $13 to $44 a month, and one customer saw her electric bill rise as she consumed more electricity after her house had been weatherized.

We are spending millions of dollars so that most consumers can save $30 a month on their electricity bill.

How is this better than providing people with a tax cut? Is this better use of the money that leaving it with the people who originally earned it?