Cuomo Wants To Decriminalize Marijuana To Mitigate Racial Profiling Lawsuits: That's Why!

So why does NY Governor Andrew Cuomo want his State Legislators to suddenly Decriminalize or Reduce Criminal Penalties for Marijuana?

Here's Why:

Racial Profiling, "Stop & Frisk" Arrests, Federal Lawsuits & Huge Damage Awards!

That's Why!


NY pot plan: Right step or bad message?


The New York governor's proposal to decriminalize the public possession of marijuana is drawing high praise from politicians and police, black and Hispanic activists and backers of pot legalization.

"It is a step in the right direction," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, a prominent African-American political activist.

But some voices issued warnings about the proposal, with one group, the Drug Free American Foundation, arguing that it is not the time "to be backing off the marijuana law."

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo unveiled the proposal Monday and said the law would end a double standard that has disproportionately hurt black and Hispanic youth.

In 1977, New York's legislature reduced the penalty for possessing 25 grams or less of marijuana to a non-criminal violation carrying a fine of no more than $100 for first-time offenders, as long as the marijuana was in private possession and not in public view.

If the marijuana is out and viewable in public -- as it might be when someone is asked to empty his or her pockets during a police "stop and frisk" -- it becomes a Class B misdemeanor and can lead to arrests and jail.

The "stop and frisk" policy allows police to stop and search anyone they deem suspicious.

In 2011, more than 50,000 arrests were made for small amounts of marijuana, the governor's office said. Half of those arrested were under 25 years old, and 82% were black or Latino. Less than 10% were ever convicted of a crime.

Selling and smoking or burning marijuana is still a crime, and Cuomo is not suggesting changing that.

"If you possess marijuana privately, it is a violation. If you show it in public, it's a crime. It's incongruous. It's inconsistent the way it has been enforced," Cuomo said in Albany on Monday.

As a result, thousands of young people have wound up "with a permanent stain on their record for something that would otherwise be a violation.

The charge makes it difficult for them to find a job," Cuomo said.

His proposal won praise from legislators, police, the Manhattan district attorney and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Some say the proposal is counterproductive.

David G. Evans, special adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation and a criminal defense lawyer in New Jersey, said the group is "very very concerned with this latest development."

"This can be seen by the young people as approving the use of marijuana, and they will most likely use marijuana. Marijuana of today is much more addictive and much more potent, and it poses health and criminal problems."

New York State Assemblyman Brian Kolb, a Republican, said he doubts legislators will back the proposal because of "pushback" from the community. He argues that marijuana possession is a federal crime, and "it does not make sense to pass guidelines at the state level that contradicts federal laws."

"This is a wrong message to send across the country," he said. "This should be a decision at the federal level to be interpreted for all the 50 states."

He said the Food and Drug Administration should make sure the plan follows the proper protocol.
"This is not a states-rights issue. This is a drug issue. In this case, this is a controlled-substance issue," he said.

But Sharpton, president of the National Action Network, said the proposal would address police abuse.

"We have been convinced, given the data, that Stop and Frisk does not alleviate crime but instead increases the racial profiling exposure of mostly young Blacks and Hispanics," he said in a statement.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the NORML Foundation, which supports legalizing marijuana, said he expects legislators to "faithfully embrace" the proposal.

He also said the proposal is "a political no-brainer" because most Americans will someday back "marijuana possession in small amounts." He said Cuomo, who might one day might have presidential aspirations, is positioning himself as the "marijuana law reformer."

Lester Grinspoon, a psychiatrist, retired professor at Harvard University and expert on drug policy, said Cuomo's move is "a step on the way of what is inevitable."

"Adults should be allowed to use marijuana responsibly, in much the way we use alcohol," he said. "It's not just because it's a civil liberties issue. It is very important to furthering marijuana as a medicine."

He said marijuana has been used in the treatment of cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS and glaucoma.

Robert MacCoun, professor of law and public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, said a dozen states have decriminalized small amounts, usually up to an ounce for a first-time possession, and most of the legal changes took place in the 1970s.

An expert on marijuana laws, MacCoun said the "decriminalization label has mattered less and less" over time.

"First, the other 38 states have become less and less likely to send convicted marijuana possession felons to prison. Second, states that have 'decriminalized' -- like New York -- still make lots of arrests for marijuana.

Few of those arrested will end up in prison, but they may do a short jail stint."

And echoing concerns about the stain of an arrest for marijuana, he said, "there is a lasting effect on their records, which hurts their employability."

MacCoun said the "big change" over the past 10 years "is the partial legalization of medical marijuana in many states."

"Recent polls suggest that roughly half of American voters now support some form of legalization; if current trends continue, I think we'll see a state legalize marijuana soon, perhaps even this November. But there will be a thorny conflict with federal laws that prohibit marijuana," he said.

He points out that medical marijuana or decriminalization can't be confused with "true legalization." He called decriminalization a "sensible reform" and not a "risky" legal change.

"Marijuana possession sanctions have almost no measurable effect on levels of marijuana use. So it is not clear whether any valid purpose is being served by all the marijuana arrests in New York, and people of color are much more likely to be arrested even though they are not more likely to be marijuana users," he said.

"Legalization is more complicated, because the steep drop in prices would be difficult to offset with a sustainable tax, and so consumption would probably increase."

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said, "the human costs to each defendant charged with a misdemeanor are serious."

"The simple and fair change proposed by Gov. Cuomo will help us redirect significant resources to the most violent criminals and serious crime problems, and, frankly, it is the right thing to do."

The governor's office said 94% of arrests for small amounts of marijuana in the state are in New York City, and Bloomberg, the New York Police Department and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have come under fire in recent years for the department's "stop and frisk" policy.

Last year, Kelly issued a policy order directing officers to issue violations, rather than misdemeanors, for small amounts of marijuana discovered during street searches.
On Monday, Bloomberg issued a statement in support of Cuomo's comments.

"The governor's proposal today is consistent with the commissioner's directive and strikes the right balance by ensuring that the NYPD will continue to have the tools it needs to maintain public safety -- including making arrests for selling or smoking marijuana," he said. "Thanks to the NYPD, our city has come a long way from the days when marijuana was routinely sold and smoked on our streets without repercussions."

Kelly said Monday, "I was asked to respond to criticism by some members of the (City) Council that the Police Department was making 'too many' arrests for small amounts of marijuana. And my response to them was, 'Well, your option is to go to Albany and get the law changed.' Better that than having New York City police officers turn a blind eye to the law as it was written, and as it is still written."

And, with the backing of the mayor and the governor, it's hard to fathom any significant opposition to the proposal will arise, said Peter Moscow, an associate professor in the Department of Law and Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

"It's a positive move," he said.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Christian Science Monitor, Russia Today, Youtube, Google Maps

Trayvon Martin's Civil Rights vs Obama's U.S. Dept Of Justice: Why Can't They Help?

"Why Are You Following Me?" Trayvon Martin asked George Zimmerman just before Zimmerman Shot Him DEAD In Cold-Blood for NO Reason.

How Often have BLACK Men, Women & Teens had to ask that same question to Store Security Guards & Police Officers when walking down the street, in Retail Stores, Malls, & Super Markets, etc., because we were being followed just because of our Skin Hues?


Recently while interviewing Trayvon Martin's Parents on NBC's "Today" Show, Host Matt Lauer read an Official statement from the DOJ saying they may NOT be able to help in this incident.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Why not???

The Federal Gov't can do anything it wants to do in this Country.

Yet any time an incident has something to do with BLACK people & Racism, Pres. Obama usually punts the issue back to State Authorities.

Why does Pres. Obama feel as though just because he is a BLACK President, that he can't act on behalf of BLACK People who are Discriminated against daily on a broad scale in this country?

Instead of attempting to punt this case back to Florida State Authorities who will just sweep it under the rug because Trayvon was BLACK, the Obama Administration could very well use this Tragic yet Historic event as a Teachable Moment regarding eliminating Racial Profiling, Enacting Reasonable Gun Laws, Reforming the American Criminal Justice System & help to eliminate Widespread Intentional Employment Discrimination.

i.e., Enforcing Civil Rights Laws for EVERYONE Not just Gay People!!

If Trayvon Martin were a White, Gay Kid (Tyler Clementi) who was Murdered as a result of a Cyber Bullying Hate Crime, I'm sure Pres. Obama's Administration would get involved,

or....

If Trayvon Martin were Amanda Knox stuck in an Italian Prison I'm sure his Administration would become involved,

Or.....

If Trayvon Martin were a Jewish Kid who was Shot I'm sure his Administration would become involved,

so why not help Trayvon's family too?

Why won't Pres. Obama publicly stand up for BLACK Americans?

He wants our Votes but he refuses to stand up for us.
That is not right.

Please Understand I'm NOT bashing Pres. Obama or his Administration.

In Fact he still has my support this Fall.

I just want to know why he won't stand up for BLACK Americans as it relates to Racial Profiling, Wrongful Execution (TROY DAVIS), Intentional Widespread Employment Discrimination, Voting Rights, etc.,

Trayvon Martin was an Innocent, Unarmed, Non-Violent, BLACK Boy struck down in the Prime of his Life while returning home from the neighborhood Store by a Zealous, Trigger Happy, Self-Appointed, Unpaid Community "Rent-a-Cop" with an obvious disdain for BLACK Youth.

Prior to Murdering Trayvon Martin in Cold-Blood for NO Reason, George Zimmerman had previously called the local Police & Sheriff Dept 46 times in 15 Months.

On most of those 9-1-1 Calls Zimmerman frequently reported that he saw BLACK Youth in his community & always Accused those BLACK Youth of Trespassing, Looking "Suspicious" or Attempting to Break into one of his Neighbor's Residences.

Since George Zimmerman was NOT a Professional, Trained Police Officer or Security Guard, I would think calling the Local Law Enforcement Authorities 46 times in 15 Months, frequently mentioning BLACK Youth in those phone calls could Constitute as Acts of Racial Profiling.

After George Zimmerman Shot & Killed Trayvon Martin in Cold-Blood for NO Reason, the Sanford Police Dept. did NOTHING to Conduct an Official Investigation, nor did they even Arrest Zimmerman.

To make matters worse the Medical Examiner performed a Drug Test on Trayvon's Corpse but the Police did NOT perform a Drug nor an Alcohol Blood Test on Zimmerman.

It doesn't require a degree in Rocket Science to clearly observe that Trayvon's Civil Rights were completely Violated in this situation.

However the Sanford Police Department may have also Violated the "Color Of Law" Legal Doctrine.

So Why won't the Obama Administration help Trayvon's family just as they helped Amanda Knox's family & Tyler Clementi's family?

I don't mean pretend to "Help" for Publicity & Political Media Coverage.

I mean Help for Real!

Pres. Obama We (BLACK Voters) Stand With You But We Need YOU To Stand With Us (BLACK Community) Too.





Feds face challenges in Trayvon Martin case


The Department of Justice is reviewing evidence in the shooting death of unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman in Florida, but prosecuting Zimmerman at the federal level could be an uphill battle, reports CBS News senior correspondent John Miller.

Martin, 17, was killed last month during an altercation with Zimmerman, who followed the teen as he walked through a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman, 28, has claimed self-defense, though Martin was found to have been carrying only a cell phone, a bag of Skittles and a container of iced tea.

Zimmerman has not been charged in Martin's death, outraging Martin's family and many in the community.

"Can't be self-defense. No way. What's he gonna attack him with? A pack of Skittles?" Tracey Martin, Trayvon's father, told CBS News.

Under growing public pressure, the Department of Justice announced Monday that it would conduct a review of the case, but added the qualification that the "government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person acted intentionally with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids."

Complicating matters, Florida state law allows a person the right to stand their ground and use deadly force if they feel threatened. The Justice Department recognized that, stating that "negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws."

The federal government can't prosecute Zimmerman for murder or manslaughter, so any prosecution for civil rights violations must prove Zimmerman took Martin's life because of prejudice.

Zimmerman's family denied he is a racist.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Daily Mail, Miami Herald, MSNBC, The Atlantic Wire, Washington Post, Google Maps

Obama Urges Congress To Pass 2nd Stimulus For Teachers, $50 Billion

Obama Pleads For $50 billion In State & Local Aid


President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid "massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters" and to support the still-fragile economic recovery.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Obama defended last year's huge economic stimulus package, saying it helped break the economy's free fall, but argued that more spending is urgent and unavoidable. "We must take these emergency measures," he wrote in an appeal aimed primarily at members of his own party.

The letter comes as rising concern about the national debt is undermining congressional support for additional spending to bolster the economy. Many economists say more spending could help bring down persistently high unemployment, but with Republicans making an issue of the record deficits run up during the recession, many Democratic lawmakers are eager to turn off the stimulus tap.

"I think there is spending fatigue," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said recently. "It's tough in both houses to get votes."

Democrats, particularly in the House, have voted for politically costly initiatives at Obama's insistence, most notably health-care and climate change legislation. But faced with an electorate widely viewed as angry and hostile to incumbents, many are increasingly reluctant to take politically unpopular positions.

The House last month stripped Obama's request for $24 billion in state aid from a bill that would extend emergency benefits for jobless workers. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to restore that funding but with debate in that chamber set to resume this week, he acknowledges that he has yet to assemble the votes for final passage. Obama's request for $23 billion to avert the layoffs of as many as 300,000 public school teachers has not won support in either chamber.

Mixed signals

Senior Democratic congressional aides said those initiatives have not gained traction in part because the White House has not made additional spending on the economy a clear priority.

In recent weeks, for instance, the White House has appeared more intent on cutting spending -- threatening to veto a defense bill over a jet engine project that the Pentagon views as unnecessary and urging every agency to come up with a list of low-priority programs for elimination. Obama has also proposed a three-year freeze in discretionary spending unrelated to national security, an idea endorsed by leaders of both parties at a meeting at the White House last week, according to Obama's letter.

With the letter, however, Obama makes a direct and unequivocal case for additional "targeted investments," including state aid and several less-expensive initiatives aimed at assisting small businesses. He specifically calls for passage of the measure that is before the Senate, which would extend unemployment benefits and offer states additional aid, increasing deficits by nearly $80 billion over the next decade.

Obama asks lawmakers to be patient on the deficit, noting that a special commission is at work on a comprehensive deficit-reduction plan.

"It is essential that we continue to explore additional measures to spur job creation and build momentum toward recovery, even as we establish a path to long-term fiscal discipline," Obama wrote. "At this critical moment, we cannot afford to slide backwards just as our recovery is taking hold."

In an interview, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the letter is intended to settle the growing debate over the opposing priorities of job creation and deficit reduction and "where you put your thumb on the scale."

"While some people say you have to spend and some people say you have to cut, the president wants to talk about both cuts and investing," Emanuel said.

GOP alternative

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), called the letter full of "contradictions."

"He's calling on Congress to pass a [jobless] bill that will add about $80 billion to the deficit, but then calls for fiscal discipline; he says these measures need to be targeted and temporary, but then calls for extending programs passed in the stimulus more than a year ago," Stewart said in an e-mail.

Republicans have offered an alternative package that proposes to cover the cost of additional jobless benefits -- but not aid to state governments -- by cutting federal spending elsewhere. In contrast to the Democratic bill, the GOP measure would reduce deficits by nearly $55 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The politics of the Democratic bill before the Senate are further complicated because it has become a grab bag of must-pass provisions. In addition to state aid and more money for jobless benefits, it includes a plan to extend $32 billion in expired tax breaks for individuals and businesses and a separate provision, known as the "doc fix," that would postpone until 2012 a scheduled pay cut for doctors who see Medicare patients.

When it was first unveiled last month, the total cost of the package approached $200 billion, with only about $50 billion paid for through higher taxes on multinational corporations, hedge fund managers and certain small businesses. Conservative Democrats in the House balked, forcing House leaders to scale back the doc fix and strip out the state aid, as well as $6 billion in health insurance subsidies for jobless workers. In the letter, Obama asks Congress to reconsider that decision. The House narrowly approved the trimmed-down bill.

Now the Senate is struggling to assemble a 60-vote coalition for the measure. Reid moved last week to restore the state aid, but the CBO said the resulting measure would add nearly $80 billion to budget deficits over the next decade. Moderates objected, saying they could not support such a big increase in borrowing at a time when the total national debt has topped $13 trillion, nearly 90 percent of the gross domestic product.

On Saturday, as Obama called for urgent action, senior Senate aides said the scramble for votes would delay final action on the bill for at least another week.



Sources: Washington Post

New Yorkers Reject Gay Marriage Bill 24-38...Bloomberg's Statement

(MSNBC) New York lawmakers reject Gay marriage Bill


New York lawmakers rejected a bill Wednesday that would have made their state the sixth to allow gay marriage, disheartening advocates already stung by a similar decision by Maine voters just last month.

The New York measure failed by a wider margin than expected, falling 12 votes short in a 24-38 decision by the state Senate. The Assembly had earlier approved the bill, and Gov. David Paterson, perhaps the bill's strongest advocate, had pledged to sign it.

New York also doesn't allow civil unions, but has several laws, executive orders and court decisions that grant many of the rights to gays long enjoyed by married couples.

The vote comes after months of delays and arm twisting of lawmakers sympathetic to the bill but representing conservative districts. It also follows a referendum in Maine that struck down a gay marriage law before it took effect.

Immediately after the vote, gay rights advocates chanted: "Equal rights now!" Many said they weren't surprised by the decision. Most, including Paterson, said they at least wanted a floor debate and vote.

Senate sponsor Thomas Duane, a Manhattan Democrat and the Legislature's first openly gay member, vowed not to give up his life's goal.

"I'm like a dog with a bone," said Duane in his closing remarks on the floor, when defeat was becoming clear. "I wouldn't let go of anyone ... Because I don't give up. I don't know how to!"

Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. A New Hampshire law takes effect Jan. 1.

"It's certainly disappointing," said Richard Socarides, a 55-year-old Manhattan lawyer and resident and former President Bill Clinton's senior adviser on gay rights issues. "I'm surprised that it was not closer. We'll have to take a hard look at what went wrong."

"My Bible stays out"

Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn, challenged lawmakers to set aside their personal religious beliefs. He asked them to remember that once even slavery was legal.

"When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out," Adams said.

"That's the wrong statement," said gay marriage opponent Sen. Ruben Diaz, a conservative minister from the Bronx. "You should carry your Bible all the time."

Diaz was the only opponent among the 38 to speak. Eighteen senators gave impassioned speeches, often about family members who survived the Holocaust and discrimination and would want gays to be equal under law.





(SI Live.com) Mayor Bloomberg's statement on the Same Sex Marriage Bill



Mayor Michael Bloomberg released a statement today expressing disappointment over the state Senate's 24-38 vote rejecting same-sex marriage.

While Bloomberg said he felt frustration over the vote, he applauded the Senate for bringing the bill to the floor and urged people to continue the fight for same-sex marriage.

Here's Bloomberg's full statement:

"I've been urging the State Senate to stand up and be counted on an issue of importance to me and millions of other New Yorkers: marriage equality. Although I'm deeply disappointed with today's result, and know that the sense of anguish and frustration is even more pronounced among gay and lesbian New Yorkers, at least we now know where individual legislators stand. And so now, we begin a new effort to secure the additional votes needed to pass this bill. I want to thank the leaders of the State Senate finally bringing this bill to the floor for a vote and I applaud the 24 senators who courageously and compassionately voted 'yes.' Historic change does not come easily, but this vote was a crucial step that, I believe, will ultimately lead the State to extend full marriage rights to all couples."



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Staten Island Live.com, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

North Carolina's Public Schools Continue To Fail While Legislators Sit Idle...More Lame Duck Politicians

Charlotte Observer, MSNBC----

Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood threw North Carolina's Public Schools governance further into disarray Friday when he ruled that Gov. Bev Perdue and the State Board of Education cannot transfer authority for running public schools from the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction to a new schools chief answerable to the board. That arrangement, he said, is unconstitutional.

Hobgood's ruling, which the state will appeal, has several implications for a public school system beset by performance problems, funding challenges and a continuing public policy debate over who's in charge:

It means Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson, elected twice to the job, is in charge of the day-to-day running of schools and carrying out policy adopted by the State Board of Education. Her authority is to be restored immediately.

It also means that repeated attempts in the legislative and executive branches of government to make the governor more responsible for school performance have been ineffective, not to mention unconstitutional. If the legislature wants to make the schools chief an appointive position rather than elective, it will have to do so by approving a constitutional amendment that the state's voters must also approve in a statewide referendum.

It's a setback for Perdue, who in January named Cumberland County Schools Superintendent Bill Harrison to the State Board of Education and asked the board to give him a new position of chief executive officer with authority to run schools on a daily basis. Atkinson – who appeared on the podium the day Perdue made her announcement, would be an “ambassador” to the state's schools.

Perdue said she did not want to pursue such a change legislatively because it might take more than a year to accomplish, if not longer. But Hobgood's ruling on a lawsuit filed on Atkinson's behalf by the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law means this question is every bit as unsettled as it has been for decades. When current U.S. Rep. Bobby Etheridge was superintendent of public instruction in the early 1990s, he also filed a lawsuit questioning the ability of the executive branch to transfer schools authority away from his office, but that suit was dismissed.

The Hobgood ruling also puts into play a more curious administrative structure. Prior to Friday, Atkinson had authority over four persons at the state education department while Harrison was in charge of hundreds. Now Harrison, whose $265,000 salary is more than double Atkinson's $123,200, reports to Atkinson.

The NC General Assembly is largely responsible for the confusion about who runs the state's schools. On several occasions the Senate passed a constitutional amendment asking voters if they wish to make the post appointive, but the House disagreed. Now, late in a difficult session, lawmakers must fix a faulty governance system they created – or condone a flawed system where the governor has little authority or responsibility for school performance. They should go for the fix.


View Larger Map

Sources: Charlotte Observer, MSNBC, Wikipedia, Wake.mync.com, Google Maps

Governors & State Lawmakers Ignoring Federal Standards When Distributing Stimulus Funds...Economically Distressed Areas Overlooked (Stimulus Watch)

MSNBC----

Under the Obama administration's Economic Stimulus Plan, needy communities were supposed to be first in line for money to rebuild highways and jump-start the economy.

It hasn't worked out that way.

The rules required that states give priority to counties considered "economically distressed." Yet less than half the federal highway money announced so far is directed toward those high-unemployment, low-income areas, according to an Associated Press analysis of more than $16 billion in spending announced by the U.S. Transportation Department.

What was supposed to be a way to steer money to hard-hit areas has turned into a coin flip: 53 percent of the money is going to counties that don't meet the federal standard of economically distressed areas. Those are places where lasting unemployment is higher than the national average or where income is significantly lower than the rest of the country.

"If economically distressed areas get the money, it's just by coincidence," said Democratic state Rep. Jim Dunnam, chairman of a committee overseeing Texas' use of stimulus money.

Just days after Obama signed the law, Texas transportation officials testified before Dunnam's committee that economic conditions were not a factor in their selection process. Since then, more than 200 Texas projects have started receiving almost $1.2 billion in federal stimulus money. Just 44 percent has gone to counties considered economically distressed.

"You do want to lean in on areas that need that help," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told the AP.

But Gibbs played down the significance of steering money to economically distressed counties, saying workers there could drive to jobs in neighboring counties.

Several Texas counties hardest hit by the economic meltdown weren't in line to get any stimulus money at all under plans approved by the Transportation Department in Washington.

In rural Terrell County, roads take a daily beating from oilfield drilling and service traffic. But in the isolated West Texas county, where oilfield layoffs are cutting into the bone, roads aren't on the list to get any financial aid from the stimulus plan.

"I'd love to have some of it," said Leo Smith, a county judge. With resignation in his voice, Smith acknowledged that population centers such as Dallas and Houston are usually first in the running for any kind of aid.

"Your rural, unpopulated areas that are producing all the oil and gas for people in cities to drive your cars ... we need to be taken care of, too," he said.

The analysis of economically distressed areas tests one of the requirements of the stimulus plan: that needy areas get preferential treatment.

The results vary wildly from state to state. In Louisiana, 7 percent of the money announced so far is going to economically distressed areas. In neighboring Mississippi, it's 86 percent.

In some states, particularly in rural ones such as Wyoming and Kansas, steering money to economically distressed areas would mean shifting it away from population centers. Two-thirds of the nation's counties qualify as economically distressed, but only about one-third of the population lives there.

A report submitted to Congress this month found that because states needed to choose projects quickly, many either didn't consider distressed areas until late in the planning process or used their own criteria rather than the federal requirements.

The report from the Government Accountability Office found that "officials from most states considered project readiness, including the three-year completion requirement, when making project selections and only later identified to what extent these projects fulfilled the economically distressed area requirement."

In drought-stricken Uvalde County, where hunters and river tourists fortify the local economy, the 6.5 percent unemployment rate is much lower than Terrell County's 9.2 percent. But the economically distressed county is getting $5.4 million to widen a half-mile stretch of Ranch Road 187 south of Sabinal, a southwest Texas town of about 1,700.

The road is so narrow at some parts "we've had a school bus get sideswiped in that area," said William Mitchell, a Uvalde County judge. "No one was hurt, but it very easily could have been a situation where kids were involved in major accident."

He noted that the project has been on a request list for about three years.

Mitchell said the irrigation systems have helped spare area's farming industry from the impact of record heat and drought conditions. But the low water levels in popular rivers such as the Frio make tubing down the rapids difficult at best. And it's taken its toll on the river's usually vibrant summer tourism industry, he said.

As of July 10, federal officials have identified about $16 billion in transportation money to be spent in counties nationwide. About $7.5 billion is going to economically distressed counties. The rest will get $8.5 billion.

The Federal Highway Administration is "absolutely monitoring this," spokeswoman Cathy St. Denis said. But there's not much they can do about it.

"The final decision is up to the states," St. Denis said.

Federal law defines economically distressed areas as those with a per capita income of 80 percent or less than the national average or an unemployment rate of 1 percent greater than the national average. Project readiness and estimated completion dates also are considerations in the law.

A spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the state had to weight all four of the guidelines specified in the law. State officials "have thus far met the criteria for these funds for Texas projects," Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said.

The new findings echo those of an earlier AP analysis that found counties with the highest unemployment fare worst under the official state stimulus plans. Federal transportation officials argued that analysis ignored the fact that workers in needy areas could drive to work on projects in other counties.


View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Recovery.gov, Google Maps