Say Anything Blog

There are so many projects that only benefit a few: Ingersoll Rand or people who need a trail for their canoe in Williston.

Let’s give up on these funds.

While we’re at it, let’s slash the bureaucracy who suck up most of the money too.  For example our Senator’s are doing (or have done) their best to quash a cutting of the number of Farm Program offices.  It seems to me that this is wasted money NOT going to the farmers.  I guess the support for them lies in the towns that would lose their offices, but the farmers can conduct their business in the same town they bank and buy their groceries in.

Food for thought:http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/archives/026385.php

Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills

2005 - 13,997
2004 - 10,656
2003 - 9,362
2002 - 8,341
2001 - 6,333
2000 - 4,326
1999 - 2,838
1998 - 2,100
1997 - 1,596
1996 - 958
1995 - 1,439

Keep in mind, the Club for Growth is a conservative group.

The thing I see wrong with this chart is that I think that they MAY be just comparing the method of getting approval rather than exact amount of pork spending.

The Citizens against Government Waste have a convoluted defination of pork.  If I recall exactly they define pork as when the normal rules of spending are not followed but rather “waived”.  From C-Span I often wondered why they are always waiving their rules.

I would define pork as special interest projects and or projects that wouldn’t meet any normal cost benefit ratio.  My defination would be harder to prove, but I think a more accurate in the amount of waste.

What I wonder, and don’t know is that perhaps these special interest projects were done using the normal rules and committee structures. 

My point is that we could have the same general amount (as a percentage of the budget) of pork now as in the past.  It’s just that perhaps the crooks in Congress are using a different method that get’s counted differently.

Does anyone have any ideas on this?

The real solution of course would be term limits.  However the El Supremo Court ruled (probably rightly so) against this.  So unless we are able to amend the constitution they aren’t going to happen.

One final point.  So perhaps the situation is the same, but it’s certainly not getting better with the Republican’s in the majority.  Still the dems aren’t going to make it better so what are we supposed to do?

Hey Rob speaking of Pork are the Friday Babes getting cut from the say anything budget?

That has nothing to do with pork.

So perhaps the situation is the same, but it’s certainly not getting better with the Republican’s in the majority. Still the dems aren’t going to make it better so what are we supposed to do?

Get rid of Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert. We now see the effects of their ruthless partisanship--since they care more about the Republican Party than they do about the Republican ideology, why would they ever object to any of these pork projects going out to their fellow Republicans (and thus, it would seem, increasing their chances of re-election).

As much as I disliked Newt Gingrich, at least in him you had a man who was trying to do, in all cases, what was best for his country. Tom DeLay & Co. only want what’s best for the Republican Party. And until you get them out, we will see never see and end to these ridiculous pork projects.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the answer to this question: can the president just veto certain parts of certain bills? Say, he liked most of the Transportation Bill, but he hated that Alaskan ‘Bridge to Nowhere’… could he just veto that part of it? This is probably an elementary Civics question, but I still don’t know it!

Last I knew there is a line item veto.

Line item veto was signed into law in 1997. However, the Supreme Court struck it down in 1998.

So to answer Dave’s question, the President either has to sign the entire bill into law, or he has to veto all of it.

No in-between.

You might consider that almost all govt spending is pork.  There are a few things that are necessary, like defense, but most of it is vote-buying by appealing to certain constituent groups.  What the Dems don’t like about the current govt is that it supports its own constituent groups instead of the ones the Dems want to funnel money to.  This is actually what the founding fathers wanted:  the opposing groups in constant contention with each other.  It keeps them occupied and leaves the people to live their lives, for the most part.  The worst part is that they spend our money extravagantly, then tells us we are running a deficit.  Good spin!

Thanks, Brandon. That’s what I suspected. So, then, it’s highly inappropriate to blame Bush for this rampant spending. One could hardly expect him to veto entire bills because some jackasses want to include some unnecessary projects on them--if so, nothing would EVER be accomplished in Washington (not that there’s anything wrong with that...).

’What are you willing to deny North Dakota’??
Well...with that question, they’re not actually suggesting NOT spending money for Katrina. They’re not suggesting that they take this finite pot of money they have, and EITHER send it down south OR keep it here.
What they mean, instead, is that either they spend Amount X in LA, or else they spend Amount X in LA *plus* Amount Y in ND—and we’re supposed to indignantly choose #2.
The question should rather be ‘We’re spending X in LA. Now are you going to try to stop us from taking even more to spend here?’
It’s all coming out of our paychecks.
Me, I’d rather put it in my checking account.

(If they did consider it a finite pot, then their question would be legitimate. But that would mean suggesting that we not sling buckets of cash down there into the swamp. Couldn’t *possibly* be so cold and insensitive, now, could they? Not our Sensitive New Age Politicians....)