Pardon the interruption ...

But can you run how this is not a "New Deal style" program by me again?

What does it matter if the employees for this program come from out of state in terms of Obama justifying spending federal dollars? Can't Obama claim that like FDR he is combating a national unemployment rate that is much too high? I get that it hurts WI politicians to fill these jobs out of state, but if combating a national unemployment rate justifies FDR's public works, why not Obama's? They held (hold) the same office, right? Barry isnt governor of WI, what does in or out of state have to do with the argument over whether or not federal programs/spending enhance a national economic recovery or hinder it?

Look, New Deal entailed more than public works, I get that, but in this instance how is this not nuts & bolts New Deal "back to work" programing? If we're talking what works and what doesnt to beat back an economic recession or depression the fundamentals are the same are they not? FDR spent bails of federal cash on public works, kept taxes artificially high, and ran the work projects from a federal rather then state level. Does that description not fit the instance you wrote of? In both instances the feds come in claiming (in word or deed) that the private sector isnt up to the task of job creation and we need a "fundamentally new" approach. FDR offers NEW Deal, Obama has his FUNDAMENTAL transformation. In either case the basic thought process is identical - the government is tasked with creating an economic recovery rather then the greedy, unscrupulous private sector; and furthermore that it's the governments job to provide direct relief until this grand central spending can prime the pump of our economy. The irony of course being that the high taxes, spending, and new regulation needed to conduct these government interventions are the very things that cause free market economies to contract. Call it New Deal, Barakanomics, "relief", public works, it all amounts to one giant government bail out. And what's worse, the strings attached to a federal bail out are rarely severed.

Have you read FDR's second bill of rights speech? Does it sound any less a radical or "fundamental" reordering of our society then what the Obama inner circle espouses? The biggest difference between Obama & FDR is Roosevelt went much, much farther then anything Obama has attempted to date, and was more honest about what he wanted.

And thats always the rub to me. Roosevelt makes Obama look like a piker when it comes to "fundamental change" via government. FDR went boldly into unprecedented territory, fundamentally shifting government's role in society & the expectations people have - a focus on government's responsibility to the individual rather then the other way around. Yet FDR is to be applauded, and Obama scorned? The multi phase, multi tiered, multi year monstrosity that was New Deal is to be defended to the last breath, protected as sacred until the last shield lay broken and muddied in the field, but let Obama build one little monorail with federal dollars & it's all hands on deck to protect such a clear and present danger to the Constitution!

Please ... a New Dealer biitching about the misappropriation of federal dollars via an intra city light train? That's priceless ... llike complaining about the teller service during a hold up.

Be it the mortgage or auto bail outs, unprecedented debt, Obama-care, or the new financial regulations bill, Obama is merely finishing FDR's thought ... or didnt you read the Roosevelt second bill of rights? At least Barry's behavior hasnt turned borderline criminal via court packing or the interning of American citizens.