Our government has a website for requesting pork?

2 slabs of bacon please. Hold the ham hocks.

Right, this Congress is the pork shoveling, public fund wasting Congress of our nightmares.

But giving control of Congress to the Demoncrats in 2006 ended the war and brought our troops home!

/Wait, what?

Stop voting incumbent. Problem solved.

Total pork spending fiscal 2005: $27.3 billion
Total pork spending fiscal 2007: $13.2 billion

Source: Citizens Against Government Waste

Those damned tax and spend Dumbocrats!

Once again:

There is nothing inherently wrong with earmarks. Pork is the problem; earmarks are inherently neutral.

If, on a bill for building a new bridge, a certain amount is earmarked to assess the way it will affect the river it's built over, that would be a good earmark.

If, on a bill for curing cancer, five million dollars was set aside to study the use of wood, that would be a bad earmark.

This is why every bill should be one single issue. No riders!

eddyatwork: This is why every bill should be one single issue. No riders!

This!!

eddyatwork: This is why every bill should be one single issue. No riders!

It's a little hard to define "single", but I agree with you in principle. However, I think it's better stated as "Every bill should have a title that accurately describes its contents".

In other words, the bill funding the construction of a bridge could accurately be called "bill for building a bridge at XY with study on its environmental impact" and the bill for the cancer/wood would be called "Bill for funding drugs that cure cancer and also investigating how to use wood".

HansensDisease: eddyatwork: This is why every bill should be one single issue. No riders!

This!!

Double THIS..times 4.

Obdicut: Once again:

There is nothing inherently wrong with earmarks. Pork is the problem; earmarks are inherently neutral.

If, on a bill for building a new bridge, a certain amount is earmarked to assess the way it will affect the river it's built over, that would be a good earmark.

If, on a bill for curing cancer, five million dollars was set aside to study the use of wood, that would be a bad earmark.

nicely put.
Still, I'd like to see what senators and representatives are the best at not using earmarks, and which are the worst offenders. Anybody know of any such list out there?

1. Nobody cares about earmarks

2. Pelosi cut them in half anyway

flavor of the month: 1. Nobody cares about earmarks

2. Pelosi cut them in half anyway

At the request of the leader of both major political parties BTW.

/Best thing that Dean and GW have done in the past few years.
//*dons asbestos suit*

HansensDisease: Total pork spending fiscal 2005: $27.3 billion
Total pork spending fiscal 2007: $13.2 billion

Source: Citizens Against Government Waste

Those damned tax and spend Dumbocrats!

bears repeating

HansensDisease: Total pork spending fiscal 2005: $27.3 billion
Total pork spending fiscal 2007: $13.2 billion

Source: Citizens Against Government Waste

Those damned tax and spend Dumbocrats!

republican pork = good
democratic pork = bad

Limbaugh said so.

We should vote out this pork-loving congress so we can get involved in 3 more pointless wars.

McCain/Rice 2008!

This pork is making me squeal

SilentStrider: Still, I'd like to see what senators and representatives are the best at not using earmarks, and which are the worst offenders. Anybody know of any such list out there?

Here's a start, CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE

Earmarks last year:

Hillary Clinton = $342 million

Barack Obama = nearly $100 million

John McCain (as always) = 0

Linky

FishingWithFredo: Hillary Clinton = $342 million

Barack Obama = nearly $100 million

John McCain (as always) = 0

Once again:

There is nothing inherently wrong with earmarks. Pork is the problem; earmarks are inherently neutral.

If, on a bill for building a new bridge, a certain amount is earmarked to assess the way it will affect the river it's built over, that would be a good earmark.

If, on a bill for curing cancer, five million dollars was set aside to study the use of wood, that would be a bad earmark.


Does McCain support the Missile Defense Shield, that total farking boondoggle?

Whatthefark: Here's a start, CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE

To be fair, they're often accused of having a corporate bias. That's why I used their numbers rather than a media source or organizations like the GAO or the CBO who'd be accused of a "librul" bias.

HansensDisease: Whatthefark: Here's a start, CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE

To be fair, they're often accused of having a corporate bias. That's why I used their numbers rather than a media source or organizations like the GAO or the CBO who'd be accused of a "librul" bias.

Anybody that tries to slide bias into a GAO report is going to get red-penciled at every level of the organization. You can't say grass is green in a GAO report without two documented sources.

Granted, people will accuse anything of bias. But honestly, impartiality is the only reason for the GAO in the first place.

Total pork spending fiscal 2005: $27.3 billion
Total pork spending fiscal 2007: $13.2 billion

= Ha ha democrats do it less

Barack Obama = nearly $100 million
John McCain (as always) = 0

= Oh, well, there's nothng wrong with earmarks

FishingWithFredo: John McCain (as always) = 0

Um... not exactly.

Linky^

He also sponsors and votes for plenty of other pork projects in other districts in exchange for ones in his. They all do.

1) Earmarking a ridering has long been an acceptable method of 'greasing the wheels' in Washington to enable broader compromise and more efficient Congressional decisions.

2) If major corporations and industries can get write-offs, tax exemptions, and ridiculous subsidies, why can't a district's constituency get the same benefits from the government?

If I am to understand correctly, the conservative argument is that corporations should get all the fiscal and welfare benefits that government can possibly give while the citizens of this country shouldn't get diddly-squat. Right?

HansensDisease Total pork spending fiscal 2005: $27.3 billion
Total pork spending fiscal 2007: $13.2 billion

Source: Citizens Against Government Waste

Those damned tax and spend Dumbocrats!

Must have just took them awhile to get started. There is between $13 billion and $18 billion or so in this one bill alone.

munchy: There is between $13 billion and $18 billion or so in this one bill alone.

Is this where you justify that trillion dollar Iraq War?

HansensDiseaseThere is between $13 billion and $18 billion or so in this one bill alone.

Is this where you justify that trillion dollar Iraq War?

I'm not justifying anything. I thought it was questionable to go to war in the first place but I thought if they were going to do it at least do it right. Which didn't happen. So the whole thing was botched from the start. Just because I believe the current congrees is corrupt doesn't mean that I thought the last congress and this president were and are just as bad. We are stuck with the worst possible scenarios. Neither party is worth the time of day.

Louder And More Dissonant:
Anybody that tries to slide bias into a GAO report is going to get red-penciled at every level of the organization. You can't say grass is green in a GAO report without two documented sources.

"Reality has a well known liberal bias"-Colbert

I don't really have a problem as long as the money is being spent well. The biggest problem I have with earmarks, though, is that it gives incumbents an unfair advantage. The can shovel a bunch of money back to their district and look pretty good when the next election comes up. A congressman should be able to look after his own district, though, so maybe it is just an unavoidable part of the game.

Looks like the President isn't the only one looking for single digit approval ratings.

Hibno I don't really have a problem as long as the money is being spent well. The biggest problem I have with earmarks, though, is that it gives incumbents an unfair advantage. The can shovel a bunch of money back to their district and look pretty good when the next election comes up. A congressman should be able to look after his own district, though, so maybe it is just an unavoidable part of the game.

I agree that not all are bad. The problem like you said is the unfair advantage it gives plus these things are laden with really bad ones. Things like the bridge to nowhere that cost us millions of dollars. Earmarks should be illiegal. Placing things like to bridge to nowhere in say the transportation bill so at least it gets the scrutiny it deserves is what should be allowed. There is no doubt that these people get elected to help the districts they belong to. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that. But earmarks are a way to shove these sometimes useless projects through and no one knows it happens for the most part.

Once again proving my point that all legislation should be submitted in writing, by the legislators.

Seriously, I think we can see a boom in gov't at the point where type writers came in and again when Xerox came around and yet again when word processors came on the scene. There might have been a bump from the advent of email, but for higher ups that came very close to the word processors.

There is nothing inherently wrong with earmarks. Pork is the problem; earmarks are inherently neutral.

no, earmarking is bad because it shortcuts the system of review. taxpayer money belongs to all of us--projects should be evaluated on basis of priority and need, not whose politician is the most effective.

and others who argue, "at least the Democratic congresses anal rape of the taxpayer is done with lube," aren't convincing anybody.

Which ones made the requests? Or rather, which ones made the most? Because I know there's some scattered members that don't do earmarks.

Gosling Which ones made the requests? Or rather, which ones made the most? Because I know there's some scattered members that don't do earmarks.

There is a website that was talked about earlier in this thread that lists allot of this stuff.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer

There is so much of it though. It boggles the mind.

albo:
no, earmarking is bad because it shortcuts the system of review. taxpayer money belongs to all of us--projects should be evaluated on basis of priority and need, not whose politician is the most effective.

You are not understanding what earmarks are. At all.


Once again:

There is nothing inherently wrong with earmarks. Pork is the problem; earmarks are inherently neutral.

If, on a bill for building a new bridge, a certain amount is earmarked to assess the way it will affect the river it's built over, that would be a good earmark.

If, on a bill for curing cancer, five million dollars was set aside to study the use of wood, that would be a bad earmark.

Americans get the pork-loving Congress they deserve

Lieberman quit?

The Grim Creeper: FishingWithFredo: John McCain (as always) = 0

Why doesn't John McCain try to bring government money back to his state? This is money that has already been appropriated, earmarks just direct it where to go. He's not actually saving anyone extra money. Any money that's been appropriated but not earmarked is just directed by the executive instead of legislative.

You don't think that the ability to direct money via earmarks, means that more money gets appropriated so that both the 'actual' priorities and the pet projects can get funded? That's one possibility; another is that earmarks shortchange the major purposes.

Aside from that, perhaps he's of the theory that members of the national legislature have a duty to the nation, not just his constituents.

Korovyov: The Grim Creeper: FishingWithFredo: John McCain (as always) = 0

Why doesn't John McCain try to bring government money back to his state? This is money that has already been appropriated, earmarks just direct it where to go. He's not actually saving anyone extra money. Any money that's been appropriated but not earmarked is just directed by the executive instead of legislative.

You don't think that the ability to direct money via earmarks, means that more money gets appropriated so that both the 'actual' priorities and the pet projects can get funded? That's one possibility; another is that earmarks shortchange the major purposes.

Aside from that, perhaps he's of the theory that members of the national legislature have a duty to the nation, not just his constituents.

A much better solution would be to restrict federal spending to items that actually has a Constitutional mandate. You are always going to have pork so you just reduce it. Give them less to spend you have less to spend on pork at least at the Federal level. Currently only about 50% of current Federal spending passes constitutional muster.

Of course you would have to phase this in to give the State and local governments time to get set up to assume responsibilities for the Social/Welfare/education and many infrastructure programs that the Federal government will no longer finance and administer.

How will the states pay for it you may ask? Well you have just cut the Federal budget by about 50% so you can cut taxes by a similar amount. That represents a lot of potential tax revenue that the state and local governments can access to fiancé the programs they see fit. If the state of New York wants a food stamp program it would be up to them to set it up, finance it and administer it. If Vermont wants universal healthcare same things would apply. Federal involvement would be limited to civil rights issue such a making sure no discrimination takes place in the administering of these programs.

Not only does this fit with the constitution but it makes better financial sense. Why send that tax revenue all the way to Washington to fiancé a large costly bureaucracy and one size fits all programs imposed on the individual states? Let them decide what services they choose to provide or not to provide.
If county X needs a new bridge they would not be able to come to the Feds to finance it.

Imagine the money saved with no Federal departments of HUD, HHS, and Education. No Social Security Administration (eventually because this would have to be phased out over years at the Federal level).

"...[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788

"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of policy, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."
James Madison, speech to the First US Congress.


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated" Thomas Jefferson


"Don't be idiots mouthing absurdities. It is obvious that this general statement is qualified and limited by the Constitution itself in what follows. No right reasoning person would ever conclude that that the enumeration of the particulars wouldn't set definitive parameters on the meaning of 'general Welfare, ' nor would reasonably intelligent people ever conclude that the specifying of the particulars was only intended to confuse and mislead as to what is meant by the 'general Welfare' phrase."
James Madison

THIS:

A letter from the President


To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the
United States to return it with that objection to the House of
Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the
Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not
include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the
navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper.

Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to
Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the
judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and
general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the
expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power.
The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National egislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent
success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States
veto of federal public works bill
March 3, 1817

The Grim Creeper: hasty ambush: tl;dr

Yeah, f*ck the poor states.

Has unconstitutional revenue sharing done anything to make "poor" states like West Virginia or Mississippi less "poor"?