Is Obama favoring friendly areas with stimulus bucks?

I’m skeptical of Ed Lasky’s conclusion at American Thinker that “Chicago rules” are at play in the way stimulus funds are being doled out. In support, Lasky quotes this from a USA Today piece:

STIMULUS POLITICS: USA Today takes on a different analysis, however, that shows that Obama districts seem to be getting more money: ‘Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year’s presidential election. That aid – about $17 billion – is the first piece of the administration’s massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

‘Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.’

Is that enough to conclude that the Obama administration is intentionally favoring friendly counties? Nah, not really. First, we’re only talking about the first $17 billion of nearly (gulp) $800 billion, or a little more than the first 2% of the funds to be spent. Second, note that the counties at the head of the pack are old hands at milking the government: “Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.”

(By the way, it looks like Lasky was quoting someone else quoting the USA Today piece — nothng outside the quotation marks is actually in the piece — but he only links to USA Today.)

A skeptic cited in the USA Today piece likewise noted these considerations and others for doubting that politics were at play. The scariest comes at the end (emphasis mine):

Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. “Even if they wanted to, I don’t think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that,” he says.

“Most of what they’re doing at this point is just stamping the checks and sending them out,” Hughes says.

Chew on that last line for a few minutes.

UPDATE (7/9/09): Gateway Pundit sees something nefarious in the division of spoils, and Donald Douglas says conservatives will benefit from even the perception of payback, whether it’s there or not. Should we be happy about that?