North Dakota #3 On List Of States Who Get The Most Pork

According to a new report from Citizens Against Government Waste.

WASHINGTON (AP) – A Washington-based taxpayer watchdog group says North Dakota and South Dakota rank high when it comes to pork-barrel spending.
North Dakota ranked third and South Dakota ranked seventh in Citizens Against Government Waste’s annual rankings of federal money directed to the 50 states.

Neither Senators Kent “Budget Hawk” Conrad or Byron Dorgan are apologetic about nabbing so much government pork for North Dakota. Probably because, for them, pork is defined as “Federal money we use to keep our liberal selves elected in a red state.”

Dakotas congressional members have typically made few apologies for federal projects. North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan and South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson, both Democrats, sit on the Senate committee that doles out federal spending.

That’s our congressional delegation, selling North Dakota sovereignty down the drain a dollar at a time.
Over at Area Voices Grand Forks Herald city beat reporter Tu-Uyen Tran argues that some of the pork North Dakota gets is actually beneficial. I’d tend to agree in principle, though his lumping of bike paths into the “necessary pork” category seems like a pretty big stretch to me.
A lot of the time pork money goes for things like roads. Bridges. Sewage infrastructure. Anti-flooding measures. These appropriations of federal dollars make sense because the entire nation is served by a strong infrastructure. Meaning it is beneficial for people in Florida to have North Dakota farmers able to bring their crops to market. And so on and so forth. Plus, when we consider that in terms of government spending problems pork spending is several orders of magnitude less important than entitlement spending you begin to wonder why so many groups spend so much time hammering on pork.
The thing is that we have moved so far beyond funding these infrastructure projects from the federal level that it isn’t even funny. Not only does a great deal of pork get wasted on useless building projects (bridge to nowhere, public buildings to be named after politicians) and questionable contracts with businesses that usually have some sort of connection to a member of Congress, it also has a terribly corrupting influence on Congress. Given the largely non-transparent manner in which earmarks are requested and appropriated, not to mention the woefully confusing federal appropriation process in general, the potential for quid pro quo arrangements and corruption is enormous with federal earmarks.
And then there is also the question of state sovereignty as I mentioned above. Federal dollars aren’t typically doled out from Congress on the basis of good will alone. Every single federal dollar that comes into a state has a string attached to it, and the folks in Washington DC use those strings to make the states do their bidding. Everything from health and human services funding to highway funding comes with certain conditions about laws in this state which must be met before we get the cash. The more our state is dependent on that money, the more control the federal government has over our state.
We need to ask ourselves: Do we want decisions made locally or in Washington DC? Because while people like Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan are more than happy to keep the federal money floodgates open for North Dakota, all that money means more federal control over our state.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    When we accept pork into our state it means we’re ok with wasteful spending in other states.

  • http://northerngleaner.blogspot.com/ Gene

    What whistler said.

    GET NORTH DAKOTANS OFF WELFARE

  • brad

    Pork=Jobs

    also
    Ronald Reagan refused to sign anything with more than 200 earmarks. George Bush has signed away up to 8000 earmarks on a single bill.

    Maybe the “big” problem is not Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy?

  • carrick

    Rob, You’re talking to the converted when it comes to subsidies.

    However, most of those aren’t earmarks.

  • Walter L. Johnson

    I have to admire how much federal money North Dakota gets for how little it spends on national politics. According to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/ the entire state was the only one that collectively contributed less than $250,000 to all presidential candidates combined in the current election cycle.

    One man’s pork is another man’s essential project protected from priority competition with other states, so before commenting on the spending people should look at the importance of roads and trains through North Dakota for the national food and energy distribution infrastructure. North Dakota had only 636,677 residents in 2005 according to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108256.html and it has consistently lost relative population between census years. That is reflected in the state’s single U. S. House Representative (about 0.2% of the U. S. House), which isn’t much clout in Congress. It used to have more people as reflected in its 304,000 housing units, about one housing unit for every two people. (That makes it a cheap place for those from hot states to spend the summer I suspect, which may give them influence with other delegations in Congress.)

    For such a small population the state has to maintain 86,609 lane miles of roads according to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p11.htm . In other words to maintain the road infrastructure, which include the interstate highways each driver must care for 0.17 lane miles, while in a typical state like Colorado (often used for marketing research) the same number is 0.026 lane miles per driver, which is 7 times the burden. They have to do that in such winter conditions that many residents simply stock up for the winter and stay home inside, if the neighbors next to my mother’s former home in Lead, SD, is representative. They also have to assure safety for their residents for gas and oil pipelines from Canada and North Dakota that primarily serve other states. They also have to do it with a lower per capita income than prevails in Western U. S. states.

    No one should envy North Dakota’s federal dollars. If you do, try living there for a winter. Anyone who lives in North Dakota has to be a hardy soul and many rural farmers cannot find a women willing to join them in the struggle, but they can’t bring themselves to leave their way of life.

  • carrick

    Only comment I have is to the extent it makes sense to have federal funding for federal infrastructure within a state, it makes more sense to have it controlled locally than centrally. Earmark spending is an example where your representative or senator is making hopefully an informed decision based on the best information available to him.

    The idea is he will more likely be able to come up with a solution that fits the states needs better than a national one-size-fits-all program.

    The problem I have with the people who object to this funding mechanism is that many of them (but certainly not Rob) are blind to the fact that they are really an example of federalist government, as opposed to a strictly centrally controlled one. Secondly, they are all over the map in their objections.

    It certainly is not the case that all earmarks are wasteful, so describing them all as pork is pure demagoguery. I think I mentioned that one of the biggest campaigners against them, Jeff Flake, can’t even tell the difference between money well-spent and money poorly spent.

    If you need an example of why the Jeff Flakes don” need to be involved at the micromanagement level in deciding which plus-ups should be funded, how much, and the distribution mechanism, etc., you don’t get a much clearer one than this.

    I agree there are problems with some earmark mechanisms used. Sometimes they are hidden inside an unrelated spending bill, or even inserted during reconciliation. Hidden earmarks should be made illegal, unless they are associated with research on projects whose very existence is classified.

    If you are going to direct how the money is spent, it should be documented who it is going to, potential conflicts of interest should be addressed and so forth. Otherwise, the money just disappears from the feds hands, and it is up to the spender to use it appropriately. Plus there are the issues with quid pro quo that are difficult to catch without a transparent mechanism.

    Transparency is possible, and indeed it is my understanding that much of the “pork spending” show up as line items in the budget and have ancillary documentation. Line items like bike paths may or may not make sense. Public recreation facilities benefit communities both materially and in terms of improved quality of life. Whether federal dollars should be involved is a separate question.

    Finally, as we all mostly acknowledge, the percent of the budget that is dedicated to plus-ups is microscopic. As a percentage of the budget it is around 1%, and has actually been going in total cost. I’m not sure counting the number of earmarks, as brad suggests, makes any sense.

    Also, it is important to separate out the defense spending portion from the non-defense: Obviously we’ve had to increase federal spending for defense related R&D, and much of that gets dispersed (often accompanied with competitive broad-area-announcements by the way) via the plus-up or earmark mechanism. Not surprisingly when the Democrats took power in congress, much of that military R&D was cut.

    If anything less money distributed to more projects has a lower risk level than fewer projects with more money. Based on my observations, there is a certain “entry level” needed for the money to be useful (sometimes the money has been so low, it didn’t actually cover anything except the administrative costs of receiving it!), but there is a rapidly diminishing returns as you go much about that. I can go into reasons for that if anybody is interested, though they are mostly pretty obvious once you think about it. (It is probably also true that for a given congressman, e.g., Murtha, that as you increase how much he spends, you also get into rapidly diminishing returns.)

    Rob:

    Do we want decisions made locally or in Washington DC? Because while people like Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan are more than happy to keep the federal money floodgates open for North Dakota, all that money means more federal control over our state.

    If you eliminate earmarks that does mean more federal control over the state.

    The currently used mechanisms actually probably has too little federal oversight of money spent this way. So “draining the swamp” is actually transferring more control back to the feds.

  • http://www.FreedomCandidate.com/ John Wallace

    EARMARKS MUST BE ELIMINATED!

    The term “Earmark” is most commonly used to refer to a provision (line-item) in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Members of Congress insert earmarks into bills in order to direct specified amounts of money be given or spent on particular organizations or projects in their home states or districts. This differs from the appropriation of budget money to a particular government agency where the agency head can exercise discretion as to where and how the funds are spent. If the funds aren’t earmarked by members of congress, the agencies are free to spend money on projects they believe are most appropriate to meet their organizational goals and objectives.

    Earmarks can more accurately be described as giving away the taxpayers hard earned money by secretly attaching line-items into non-related congressional bills for specific projects or specific recipients in order to get re-elected.

    Many of the beneficiaries of these earmarked funds are state or local public agencies, but just as often, the money goes to private entities where the beneficiaries are political supporters of the legislators pushing the earmarks. Earmarks are the principal means by which Members of Congress “bring home the pork” and publishing their earmarks during an election year is a common tactic used to help incumbent members of congress get reelected.

    It is not so much that any single earmark is the problem, but rather it’s the entire process. There is no real transparency or accountability in the current system. Members of congress try to re-direct billions of dollars of funding to specific projects within their district without subjecting these projects to debate by their colleagues, or to scrutiny and oversight by the public. The earmarking process invites backroom deals and sometimes unethical, or even corrupt behavior. It has become part of a “pay-to-play” culture where lobbyists, contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for receiving federal funding via earmarks for their special projects.

    While the vital interests of the nation are being ignored by members of both houses of congress regardless of party affiliation, many legislators concentrate their efforts on diverting appropriated agency money to low-priority and sometimes outrageous special interest projects that will generate local publicity and additional campaign contributions.

    While the country suffers from an invasion of illegal aliens and cannot seem to find the funds for increased border security, congress earmarks $3.4 million to research the Formosan Subterranean Termite and $10 million to La Raza, a pro-illegal alien amnesty organization. While the country goes deeper and deeper into debt and the dollar seems to lose its value every day, congress earmarks $450,000 for the International Peace Garden in Dunseith, North Dakota and $13.5 million for the International Fund for Ireland, which includes funding for the World Toilet Summit. While the nation’s education system is failing the American people, congress earmarks $2 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York and another $200,000 for the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas, Nev.

    The House of Representatives has recently taken an important first step in reducing earmarks by passing House Rules changes requiring that earmarked spending projects and their congressional sponsors be publicized on the internet at least 48 hours before they are considered for a vote on the floor. Under the new rules, Members of Congress will be required to justify the public need for the specific earmarked expenditures and certify that they won’t benefit financially from them. This is a good step forward, but more must be done.

    The best way to reduce the number of earmarks is to pass legislation that requires that all bills and legislation be single issue or purposed. An individual bill should address one specific issue and only that issue. Any amendments must directly address that specific issue. No pork, no side issues, and especially no riders. All bills must be published and the discussions open to public scrutiny.

    Limiting legislation to a single purpose will make bills more concise, and will substantially reduce the number of expensive special interest giveaways that are routinely inserted into so called “must pass” legislation without any debate. If members of congress want to fund specific projects back in their home states, let them introduce bills for these projects and let these bills be openly debated and voted on.

    By:
    JOHN W. WALLACE
    Candidate for Congress
    New York’s 20th Congressional District
    http://www.FreedomCandidate.com

  • carrick

    It’s also not clear to me that ND is necessarily a “welfare state”, at least based on the earmarked spending.

    Once you separate out defense spending and transportation infrastructure, I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes out closer to the middle of the pack.

    You guys have a number of major road systems, a huge tract of federal park land, large military bases, etc etc that certainly contributes to your overall federal infrastructural spending. Having a low-population density artificially inflates your status when the spending is measured on a per-capita basis.

    I haven’t looked at the numbers, maybe you guys really are a bunch of bums. But I would guess not. Mississippi on the other hand (cough cough </unintelligible> )

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    I’ll bet most North Dakotans are quite proud of being the number three welfare state.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    And everywhere else.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    But I think they have the same impact. If you don’t toe the federal representation’s line, you don’t get in on the federal gravy train.

    If you don’t follow DC’s laws, you don’t get your federal funding.

    I’m with you about earmarks for infrastructure and certain other legitimate issues, but I think we’re far beyond those basic and necessary functions in a lot of instances. And the long-term corrosive nature of that mission creep worries me.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Pork=Jobs

    Government spending does not create sustainable economic growth.

    If you eliminate earmarks that does mean more federal control over the state.

    The currently used mechanisms actually probably has too little federal oversight of money spent this way. So “draining the swamp” is actually transferring more control back to the feds.

    Perhaps, but what troubles me is that in a lot of ways our political leadership here in North Dakota is making us dependent on all this federal money which comes year after year. Our ag industry is hooked on it. Our local county/municipal boards are becoming little more than mechanisms through which federal largess is distributed.

    Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad and Earl Pomeroy control the federal dollars flowing into the state. If you want to start a business in the state and enjoy some of that economic development money, you have to grease their palms first.

    And then there’s a problem with the federal government mandating that our local laws be a certain way in order to get federal money. Like our child support laws having to be a certain way so we can get our TANF funding.

    Its ridiculous. All this federal money is causing us to lose local control, and I think that mentality starts with earmarks.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development