So the latest from the Heritage Society that's making the rounds in right wing circles is this little gem:
http://blog.heritage.org/...
The claim? That the stimulus funds were distributed based on politics, since states with higher Democratic congressional representation got a higher per-capita benefit from stimulus spending.
A quick look at the graph they use for their basis shows how weak this correlation is, but just to check I ran the math - comparing:
per capita stimulus spending ( http://projects.propublica.org/... )
with the proportional size of the state's Democratic House delegation in 2009
I get a correlation of 0.08.
Yes ... a very slight positive correlation
But ... a VERY SLIGHT positive correlation.
Would the Heritage Foundation be so kind as to point out to their readers that their correlation is laughably weak? Does a jackal give their prey a 30 second head start?
But if you really want to shut down a winger on this topic - just point out the following.
The 4 lowest state in per capita stimulus spending - Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Virginia - all have GOP governors who have been very loud about turning down stimulus spending at one point or another. Using the Google Test on "xxx rejects stimulus money", you get the following:
Rick Perry - 1,640,000 results
Rick Scott - 2,800,000 results
Chris Christie - 14,700,000 results
Bob McDonnell - 4,130,000 results
You don't get to turn down stimulus dollars, and then claim partisan politics because your state is getting less of the stimulus spending. That's more than just stupid. That's malevolently stupid.