Pro Publica has a graphic showing that stimulus funds aren't concentrated in high unemployment states. As Matt says, that's not surprising: The reason unemployment is especially bad in Michigan is the decline of the auto-industry, not an absence of infrastructure spending. Indeed, what yu'd actually want is to see the infrastructure targeted to fast-growing economies in ways that would help them absorb new workers who need to migrate towards occupational opportunity. But that's not the primary pattern on display, either. Rather, you're really seeing a disproportionate amount of money per unemployed worker in small states, which is essentially the outcome the Senate -- with its equal representation for California and Montana -- was designed to ensure. It's also worth noting what you're not seeing: Increased infrastructure investment in the states of swing senators. Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Maine did not benefit from the hinge role played by Nelson, Specter, and Collins. Nor are you really seeing unexpected investment in the states of powerful senators: Neither Reid's Nevada nor McConnell's Kentucky did particularly well. This is testament, I guess, to Obama's insistence that the bill avoid earmarks. Though you could also make the case that including earmarks would have led to a more effective, if porkier, bill. Buying Arlen Specter off with $5 billion more in spending might have been wiser than buying him off with $100 billion less in spending. WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOLLARS GO.
Pro Publica has a graphic showing that stimulus funds aren't concentrated in high unemployment states. As Matt says, that's not surprising: The reason unemployment is especially bad in Michigan is the decline of the auto-industry, not an absence of infrastructure spending. Indeed, what yu'd actually want is to see the infrastructure targeted to fast-growing economies in ways that would help them absorb new workers who need to migrate towards occupational opportunity. But that's not the primary pattern on display, either. Rather, you're really seeing a disproportionate amount of money per unemployed worker in small states, which is essentially the outcome the Senate -- with its equal representation for California and Montana -- was designed to ensure. It's also worth noting what you're not seeing: Increased infrastructure investment in the states of swing senators. Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Maine did not benefit from the hinge role played by Nelson, Specter, and Collins. Nor are you really seeing unexpected investment in the states of powerful senators: Neither Reid's Nevada nor McConnell's Kentucky did particularly well. This is testament, I guess, to Obama's insistence that the bill avoid earmarks. Though you could also make the case that including earmarks would have led to a more effective, if porkier, bill. Buying Arlen Specter off with $5 billion more in spending might have been wiser than buying him off with $100 billion less in spending. 
