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.
Keep in mind, the Club for Growth is a conservative group.
Dave - 07:10am on 10/24/2005
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.
The Whistler - 07:10am on 10/24/2005
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?
The Whistler - 07:10am on 10/24/2005
Hey Rob speaking of Pork are the Friday Babes getting cut from the say anything budget?
richard - 07:10am on 10/24/2005
That has nothing to do with pork.
The Whistler - 08:10am on 10/24/2005
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!
Dave - 10:10am on 10/24/2005
Last I knew there is a line item veto.
richard - 10:10am on 10/24/2005
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.
Brandon - 11:10am on 10/24/2005
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!
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
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.
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!