South Dakota

Posted on November 17, 2009

There is more than $288 million in stimulus money that is floating around phantom districts in South Dakota, right now, according to recovery.gov. $280 million of those funds are locked in a district that has not been seen since the 1980 census. The other $8 million is locked up in one of the other 8 non-existent districts to which stimulus funds have been given. It is a surprise that there is so much room for confusion in a state with only one congressman. Below is the most current stimulus data in the state:

1st congressional district 844 $279,505,478

6th congressional district 0 $5,724,000

2nd congressional district 0 $1,454,000

46th congressional district 2 $603,635

8th congressional district 11 $469,140

7th congressional district 1 $200,448

14th congressional district 3 $132,206

29th congressional district 1 $113,277

4th congressional district 0 $4,125

A Watchdog study revealed 440 non-existent congressional districts within the stimulus tracking web site, recovery.org. The full report can be found here and below:

Recovery’s Phantom Districts –

Posted under Uncategorized.

2 Comments For This Post So Far

James P. Roling
11:23 am on January 19th, 2011

Dear Sirs:

I am curious as to your organization’s scope. I have visited your website & see that you cover state & local government activity. I am looking for a independent “watchdog” organization that is willing to stand up for what is right, fair and ethical. I have seen far too much in the realm of so called professional engineering that is simply wrong, unethical and without required knowledge. The problem I’m running up against , however, is that there are thousands of people that can testify to these issues, but are reluctant due to the identification which will or may have an adverse affect on their business, careers or personal life.

I am not talking about heresay, opinions or slander, I am talking about absolute, provable, concrete issues that can be documented. The PE license was developed/created to “protect the public”. This is not happening; it is left to the owner & contractor to do this. This is not acceptable and needs to be addressed.

Please advise if this is something that may/could fit into your organization’s agenda.

Regards,

James P. Roling, BSME