Full Version: Fiscal year 2007 Appropriations Bill
With Congress coming back after the election into a lame duck session to pass the few bills before the end of the year, what a surprise I found while surfing some blogs to be directed to the Heritage Foundation talking about the FY 2007 approriations bills being filled with over 10,000 pork projects.
Congress Returns to Spending Bills Loaded With Pork
1.What is some of the worst pork projects you could find from the list provided from the link?FY2007 Appropriations Bill Pork Projects
2.Does anyone believe any of these will be stripped from the bill before it gets to the President's desk?
3.Should the President sign or veto this pork project filled appropriations bill?
4.How is this fiscally responsible?
Congress Returns to Spending Bills Loaded With Pork
QUOTE
Congress’s pork gravy train rolls on despite promises to slow or stop it. As Congress returns to finish the final 11 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2007, it will take up House and Senate bills currently containing an estimated 10,000 pork projects, about as many as last year. Members of Congress should listen to the demands of frustrated voters and eliminate these projects.
1.What is some of the worst pork projects you could find from the list provided from the link?FY2007 Appropriations Bill Pork Projects
2.Does anyone believe any of these will be stripped from the bill before it gets to the President's desk?
3.Should the President sign or veto this pork project filled appropriations bill?
4.How is this fiscally responsible?
2.Does anyone believe any of these will be stripped from the bill before it gets to the President's desk?
No and the new leadership will only shift the port to their friends esp. if king og the “earmark” Murtha gets the top spot. The American people need to find a way to stop this. No end in sight regardless of which Party is in power.
3.Should the President sign or veto this pork project filled appropriations bill?
YES and he could if he had the line item veto. The reality is both parties attach pork to bills they know the President needs to sign. Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment to allow for the line item veto?
4.How is this fiscally responsible?
Its not and never will be.
No and the new leadership will only shift the port to their friends esp. if king og the “earmark” Murtha gets the top spot. The American people need to find a way to stop this. No end in sight regardless of which Party is in power.
3.Should the President sign or veto this pork project filled appropriations bill?
YES and he could if he had the line item veto. The reality is both parties attach pork to bills they know the President needs to sign. Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment to allow for the line item veto?
4.How is this fiscally responsible?
Its not and never will be.
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 16 2006, 02:04 PM) 
3.Should the President sign or veto this pork project filled appropriations bill?
YES and he could if he had the line item veto. The reality is both parties attach pork to bills they know the President needs to sign. Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment to allow for the line item veto?
YES and he could if he had the line item veto. The reality is both parties attach pork to bills they know the President needs to sign. Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment to allow for the line item veto?
The President is perfectly capable of vetoing a bill and sending it back to Congress to strip out the pork. All it really requires is that little anatomical feature called a spine. It's not to late for him to find it.
By the way, I just noticed this item in the pork list on Heritage's site:
"DC $350,000 National Council of La Raza, Washington DC"
HUNH?!
4.How is this fiscally responsible?
It's not, and I should hasten to add, neither is Heritage's apparent "solution", which is just to give block grants to state and local governments. That's hardly an improvement. State and local governments (except maybe in rare instances of really bad luck) should never be financially dependent on Washington for anything, and Congressmen should not be able to buy the votes of their constituents by "bringing home the bacon" back from Washington. The "bacon" should remain at its source, except for what's needed for truly national purposes (defense, etc.). Any money that's being sent back to the states from Washington is money that Washington overcharged in the first place. If it really has that much money to burn it should just cut taxes.
Ted giving the President of either party the line item veto only gives him the ability to pull things he doesn't like out or be retailitory against a member which I would be against. Like Blackstone said he can always veto the bill if he is so inclined which he hasn't. Also if their needs to be earmarks I would except them being going thru a process of a competition against the other earmarks others want and live or die on their merits if their was a certain amount of money allocated each year. But its funny Ted haven't you been listening to what the Democrat's been saying how they are going to be changing this process, while I am waiting to see I am at least giving them the benefit of the doubt till they prove me wrong unlike you as usual when it comes to the Democrats. Go figure. 
1.What is some of the worst pork projects you could find from the list provided from the link?
Actually, I found myself not being angered by the list. There weren't any grants given out to companies making record profits, nor were there grants handed out to people rolling in money. Many of the grants are relatively small, under half a million, and some under a hundred grand. The whole thing adds up to less than a billion dollars. I bet we spend that much over a few days in Iraq.
I do wonder about the Death Valley water project. What's up with that, a pipeline? It'd be interesting to see the proposal.
2.Does anyone believe any of these will be stripped from the bill before it gets to the President's desk?
I don't know for sure, but the time for taking stuff out is probably over.
3.Should the President sign or veto this pork project filled appropriations bill?
That's up to him. I think he'll sign it. The bill comes from the Republican-controlled Congress. It won't go Demo until next year.
4.How is this fiscally responsible?
It's putting money into this country rather than a foreign country. I understand the states' rights arguments, and by gosh that would be something if the states did the taxation and kept the money for their respective citizens. This does not necessarily mean that taxes for individuals would go down, nor does it mean that pork projects wouldn't be created. It very well could mean that poor states will get poorer while rich states get richer. It very well could mean that disasters become the states' responsibilities, and so New Orleans would simply remain a rotten place to live or visit.
So, are we a union or not? I think we are. Thus, there are union taxes that ought to be spent within the union, not elsewhere. Meanwhile every state can put forward proposals for the money, so that's equal opportunity.
Anyway, I doubt the Democrats will change this system. What would be the motivation? We're not talking about enough money to balance the budget, and eliminating these projects would hurt the union. Plus the days of states' rights being important to voters is over. Ross Perot took care of that one. On this front, I do think that it will be business as usual with Demos in control of the pursestrings. I don't see this as a political liability, and with some creative presentation, can be show to be an asset.
The Democrats care more about this country than Iraq. I think this is true and something that helped sway voters during the midterms.
Actually, I found myself not being angered by the list. There weren't any grants given out to companies making record profits, nor were there grants handed out to people rolling in money. Many of the grants are relatively small, under half a million, and some under a hundred grand. The whole thing adds up to less than a billion dollars. I bet we spend that much over a few days in Iraq.
I do wonder about the Death Valley water project. What's up with that, a pipeline? It'd be interesting to see the proposal.
2.Does anyone believe any of these will be stripped from the bill before it gets to the President's desk?
I don't know for sure, but the time for taking stuff out is probably over.
3.Should the President sign or veto this pork project filled appropriations bill?
That's up to him. I think he'll sign it. The bill comes from the Republican-controlled Congress. It won't go Demo until next year.
4.How is this fiscally responsible?
It's putting money into this country rather than a foreign country. I understand the states' rights arguments, and by gosh that would be something if the states did the taxation and kept the money for their respective citizens. This does not necessarily mean that taxes for individuals would go down, nor does it mean that pork projects wouldn't be created. It very well could mean that poor states will get poorer while rich states get richer. It very well could mean that disasters become the states' responsibilities, and so New Orleans would simply remain a rotten place to live or visit.
So, are we a union or not? I think we are. Thus, there are union taxes that ought to be spent within the union, not elsewhere. Meanwhile every state can put forward proposals for the money, so that's equal opportunity.
Anyway, I doubt the Democrats will change this system. What would be the motivation? We're not talking about enough money to balance the budget, and eliminating these projects would hurt the union. Plus the days of states' rights being important to voters is over. Ross Perot took care of that one. On this front, I do think that it will be business as usual with Demos in control of the pursestrings. I don't see this as a political liability, and with some creative presentation, can be show to be an asset.
The Democrats care more about this country than Iraq. I think this is true and something that helped sway voters during the midterms.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 17 2006, 10:04 AM)
I understand the states' rights arguments, and by gosh that would be something if the states did the taxation and kept the money for their respective citizens. This does not necessarily mean that taxes for individuals would go down, nor does it mean that pork projects wouldn't be created. It very well could mean that poor states will get poorer while rich states get richer.
Is that what was happening before the federal government became the states' sugar daddy? In any event, I don't think these earmarks have much of an effect on that overall balance of wealth anyway. They're just a cheap way for unworthy politicians to buy the votes of their constituents, instead of earning those votes by pursuing genuinely beneficial national policies.
QUOTE
It very well could mean that disasters become the states' responsibilities, and so New Orleans would simply remain a rotten place to live or visit.
I'm not all that opposed to the idea of states being responsible themselves for saving the money and obtaining the insurance for dealing with the effects of natural disasters. But that's not really what this issue is about. It's not so objectionable when the entire Congress votes to help out a particular state or region that was hit by an extraordinary misfortune of some kind. The problem here is the routine habit of Congressmen - particularly long-time incumbents who are part of the Ol' Boys Club - constantly slipping into bills little riders that wouldn't get 10 votes if presented to the entire house, just so that they can keep their own constituents happy and reelecting them.
I would technically agree with you AuthorMusician that this years pork in the appropriation bills is not as bad as previous years like the bridge to no where as one example, but like I said in my previous post I much rather have ear marks by members either be in a competition where they have to compete against other earmarks from other states for a certain amount of dollars per year and not given out by chairman as rewards. Like when Stevens when on his tantrum on the Senate floor when Senator Coburn try to remove the bridge to no where & Cantwell with his drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.
A bare-knuckles politician hulks over Senate race here
Not exactly sure how this could be setup though, I just started this thread because as my next link will show how the pork has been going crazy over the years and needs some accountability and some saneness brought back to it.
Citizens Against Government Waste
With 2005 having 13,997 costing $27.3 billion, 2006 had only 9,963 costing $29 billion. While I am not saying that all pork is bad what I am saying while we have huge deficits in everything, 2 wars and many other things going on we need to be fiscally responsible which is why I much rather have them have to compete against eachother somehow.
A bare-knuckles politician hulks over Senate race here
QUOTE
Waving his hands, his voice rising in anger, Stevens admonished his colleagues that a vote against ANWR drilling would impoverish Hurricane Katrina victims, leave the elderly to freeze during the winter and even aid terrorists.
He vowed to travel the country and tell voters about the harm their senators inflicted by blocking the flow of Alaskan oil and the money it would raise.
Then he turned his attention to Cantwell, who had led the opposition: "I hope the senator from Washington likes my visits to Washington state, because I'm gonna visit there often."
snipet
He has used his seat on the Appropriations Committee and his perfect knowledge of lawmaking's arcane details to reward supporters and punish opponents.
He vowed to travel the country and tell voters about the harm their senators inflicted by blocking the flow of Alaskan oil and the money it would raise.
Then he turned his attention to Cantwell, who had led the opposition: "I hope the senator from Washington likes my visits to Washington state, because I'm gonna visit there often."
snipet
He has used his seat on the Appropriations Committee and his perfect knowledge of lawmaking's arcane details to reward supporters and punish opponents.
Not exactly sure how this could be setup though, I just started this thread because as my next link will show how the pork has been going crazy over the years and needs some accountability and some saneness brought back to it.
Citizens Against Government Waste
QUOTE
The Congressional Pig Book is CAGW's annual compilation of the pork-barrel projects in the federal budget. The 2005 Pig Book identified a record 13,997 projects in the 13 appropriations bills that constitute the discretionary portion of the federal budget for fiscal 2005, costing taxpayers $27.3 billion. A "pork" project is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures. To qualify as pork, a project must meet one of seven criteria that were developed in 1991 by CAGW and the Congressional Porkbusters Coalition.
snipet
As in previous years, all of the items named in the Pig Book meet at least one of CAGW¹s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:
* Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
* Not specifically authorized;
* Not competitively awarded;
* Not requested by the President;
* Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
* Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
* Serves only a local or special interest.
snipet
As in previous years, all of the items named in the Pig Book meet at least one of CAGW¹s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:
* Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
* Not specifically authorized;
* Not competitively awarded;
* Not requested by the President;
* Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
* Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
* Serves only a local or special interest.
With 2005 having 13,997 costing $27.3 billion, 2006 had only 9,963 costing $29 billion. While I am not saying that all pork is bad what I am saying while we have huge deficits in everything, 2 wars and many other things going on we need to be fiscally responsible which is why I much rather have them have to compete against eachother somehow.
QUOTE
Cadman
Ted giving the President of either party the line item veto only gives him the ability to pull things he doesn't like out or be retailitory against a member which I would be against. Like Blackstone said he can always veto the bill if he is so inclined which he hasn't. Also if their needs to be earmarks I would except them being going thru a process of a competition against the other earmarks others want and live or die on their merits if their was a certain amount of money allocated each year. But its funny Ted haven't you been listening to what the Democrat's been saying how they are going to be changing this process, while I am waiting to see I am at least giving them the benefit of the doubt till they prove me wrong unlike you as usual when it comes to the Democrats. Go figure.
Ted giving the President of either party the line item veto only gives him the ability to pull things he doesn't like out or be retailitory against a member which I would be against. Like Blackstone said he can always veto the bill if he is so inclined which he hasn't. Also if their needs to be earmarks I would except them being going thru a process of a competition against the other earmarks others want and live or die on their merits if their was a certain amount of money allocated each year. But its funny Ted haven't you been listening to what the Democrat's been saying how they are going to be changing this process, while I am waiting to see I am at least giving them the benefit of the doubt till they prove me wrong unlike you as usual when it comes to the Democrats. Go figure.
The line item veto is still preferable to vetoing nearly every bill – which is what it would take to stop the port. And if the Bill just keeps coming back with pork? No what we need is a better way to stop this and if you were under the illusion the Dems were going to do this – FORGET IT. The simple fact that Pelosi pushed king of the “earmarks” Murtha as her second in command tell us this clearly.
No we need SOMETHING that works if not the line item veto.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.