Headless Thompson Gunner,
Money for new locks and ice breakers for the Great Lakes would allow more shipping traffic on the lower 4 lakes and year round traffic for the first time ever on Lake Superior. More shipping of goods like taconite means more money in the economy. The Army Corps has had approval to build a new lock for years but has never been funded for it. This isn't pork, unlike money for the NEA, this would have a real effect on our economy. Even Carl Levin gets it right sometimes. 
I don't doubt that it will have some economic benefit. I'm questioning whether it will have the maximum economic benefit that can be achieved from the money spent.
There's an old economic fallacy that deals with this sort of question. Resources are finite. When you use them for a pork project like locks and ice breakers, you are necessarily taking those resources away from somewhere else.
It's tempting to look at the results of some government pork program and say "See? This was a good use of resources, look at the shiny new locks and ice breakers we have because of it." But that's fallacious. To truly understand the situation you must also look at what you had to give up to get those locks and ice breakers.
The steel in those ice breakers could have been used to build a new factory, or a whole bunch of cars for people to drive to work, or a new skyscraper for office workers to use.
The concrete and manpower used to build new locks could have been used to build new roads or bridges or schools.
That $88 billion could have been used to recapitalize a bank, allowing them to make investment loans to worthy business all over the country.
Which of these is the best alternative? Hint: the best alternative is rarely the one that had to be forced on people by politicians.
