Full Version: "Pork"
"Congress spent $17.2 billion of taxpayer money on pork-barrel projects, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste. The nonpartisan, nonprofit group released its annual book detailing congressional spending for the 2008 fiscal year....
For the first time, the names of members of Congress were added to the projects. The top three spenders were Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., with $892 million; Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska with $469 million; and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., with $465 million. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., was No. 13 on the list with $296 million in pork-barrel projects and her presidential rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was No. 69 with $97 million. Sen. John McCain R-Ari., was among five senators who didn't spend a single pork-barrel dollar, according to the list."
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/1...os&psp=news
Questions for debate:
Does this record affect your views about who is the real "populist" in our group of three presidential candidates?
Does this record affect your views on who may be beholden to "special interests"?
For the first time, the names of members of Congress were added to the projects. The top three spenders were Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., with $892 million; Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska with $469 million; and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., with $465 million. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., was No. 13 on the list with $296 million in pork-barrel projects and her presidential rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was No. 69 with $97 million. Sen. John McCain R-Ari., was among five senators who didn't spend a single pork-barrel dollar, according to the list."
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/1...os&psp=news
Questions for debate:
Does this record affect your views about who is the real "populist" in our group of three presidential candidates?
Does this record affect your views on who may be beholden to "special interests"?
Look at who's on page 5 (of 12) among House members: Ron Paul: 8 projects totaling over $22 million. The hypocrite. http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/House_-....pdf?docID=3022
Does this record affect your views about who is the real "populist" in our group of three presidential candidates?
Besides Ron Paul, I'd say the three remaining candidates are true to form. Two want to spend your money on pork barrel projects, one wants to make the sponsors of such pork famous.
Does this record affect your views on who may be beholden to "special interests"?
Not really. To be fair, most (if not all) legislators use pork projects for re-election efforts and to pay back those that helped to get them elected. It is more of a reflection of where politicians stand in the country and where their priorities are than who is beholden to special interests.
Does this record affect your views about who is the real "populist" in our group of three presidential candidates?
Besides Ron Paul, I'd say the three remaining candidates are true to form. Two want to spend your money on pork barrel projects, one wants to make the sponsors of such pork famous.
Does this record affect your views on who may be beholden to "special interests"?
Not really. To be fair, most (if not all) legislators use pork projects for re-election efforts and to pay back those that helped to get them elected. It is more of a reflection of where politicians stand in the country and where their priorities are than who is beholden to special interests.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 3 2008, 05:07 PM) 
Besides Ron Paul, I'd say the three remaining candidates are true to form. Two want to spend your money on pork barrel projects, one wants to make the sponsors of such pork famous.
If the one you're referring to is Obama, Amlord, then you'd be correct. He was one of the sponsors of the Federal Funding and Accountability Act.
edited to add, after doing some further research, McCain also was a co-sponsor, as was Clinton (ironically).
McCain has done his share of pork too, though he's being a little dishonest about it:
QUOTE
And I’m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state and I guarantee you I’ll veto those bills. I’ll ask for the line item veto and I’ll veto them and I’ll make the authors of them famous.
To be fair, he does pale in comparison to Clinton and arguably Obama. Obama at least released all his earmarks, both requested and awarded. Clinton (to my knowledge) has yet to do that or release her tax returns.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Apr 3 2008, 07:37 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 3 2008, 05:07 PM)
Besides Ron Paul, I'd say the three remaining candidates are true to form. Two want to spend your money on pork barrel projects, one wants to make the sponsors of such pork famous.
If the one you're referring to is Obama, Amlord, then you'd be correct. He was one of the sponsors of the Federal Funding and Accountability Act.
edited to add, after doing some further research, McCain also was a co-sponsor, as was Clinton (ironically).
McCain has done his share of pork too, though he's being a little dishonest about it:
QUOTE
And I’m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state and I guarantee you I’ll veto those bills. I’ll ask for the line item veto and I’ll veto them and I’ll make the authors of them famous.
To be fair, he does pale in comparison to Clinton and arguably Obama. Obama at least released all his earmarks, both requested and awarded. Clinton (to my knowledge) has yet to do that or release her tax returns.
Check again, Doc. Even your :::cough::: non-partisn website acknowledges the difference between the referenced McCain bills and earmarks. McCain's bill for the Univ of Arizona was a stand alone bill, fully debated and voted on by Congress. From your cited website.....
QUOTE
UPDATE: On Nov. 17, 2003, Roll Call posted a “correction” to its original article about the Luke Air Force Base request:
The Nov. 6 article “McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule” inaccurately stated that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) violated his own rules against so-called “pork barrel” spending. The Senate Parliamentarian’s office maintains that the provision was properly authorized in the Senate-passed version of the fiscal 2004 Defense authorization bill and did not need to be signed by the president to be considered “authorized,” as the article suggested. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), chairwoman of the Appropriations subcommittee on military construction, told Roll Call that McCain never specifically asked her to put the $14.3 million project for Arizona’s Luke Air Force Base into the fiscal 2004 military construction bill.
The Nov. 6 article “McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule” inaccurately stated that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) violated his own rules against so-called “pork barrel” spending. The Senate Parliamentarian’s office maintains that the provision was properly authorized in the Senate-passed version of the fiscal 2004 Defense authorization bill and did not need to be signed by the president to be considered “authorized,” as the article suggested. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), chairwoman of the Appropriations subcommittee on military construction, told Roll Call that McCain never specifically asked her to put the $14.3 million project for Arizona’s Luke Air Force Base into the fiscal 2004 military construction bill.
And from the NYT article cited by your website.....
QUOTE
He and Mr. Kyl are seeking the money through a free-standing bill introduced in December, an approach that Mr. McCain's aides call a far cry from what he finds most objectionable: furtive efforts to slip through last-minute spending projects without prior Congressional scrutiny.
BIG difference. There was the opportunity for a full and fair debate on this bill unlike the earmarks both Clinton and Obama have snuck through in the dead of night.
Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 4 2008, 12:55 AM)
[Check again, Doc. Even your :::cough::: non-partisn website acknowledges the difference between the referenced McCain bills and earmarks. McCain's bill for the Univ of Arizona was a stand alone bill, fully debated and voted on by Congress. From your cited website.....
I sit corrected
However, imo this is still pork. It may be kosher pork, but its still pork. Does the Rehnquist Library have to receive Federal funding? I will concede, though, that this is not the earmark process being used. The topic was pork, though, and McCain's bill for the funding of the library still doesn't pass the oink test imo.QUOTE
BIG difference. There was the opportunity for a full and fair debate on this bill unlike the earmarks both Clinton and Obama have snuck through in the dead of night.
I agree, but do you at least concede that Obama supports the idea of transparency for these things? And, unlike Clinton, he's been fully transparent about his earmarks. While I'd love to see earmarks in general disappear from the Federal budgeting process, the 2006 legislation was at least a step in the right direction.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Apr 4 2008, 09:33 AM)
I agree, but do you at least concede that Obama supports the idea of transparency for these things? And, unlike Clinton, he's been fully transparent about his earmarks. While I'd love to see earmarks in general disappear from the Federal budgeting process, the 2006 legislation was at least a step in the right direction.
Transparent and pork laden. $97 million in one year is nothing to sneeze at. To counter, you say "Oh oh wait a minute, McCain had that one bill four years ago that gave $14 million to the U of A!!!"
Kudos for Obama's transparency. Shame on his pork.
Clinton--let's just not go there. She "co-sponsored" (what a joke) the bill that reveals her hundreds of millions in pork barrel projects.
McCain's lack of pork barrel spending has made him unpopular with special interests. It is one of the key reasons why his opponents (both Democratic and Republican) have raised a ton more money than he has. Obama raised nearly as much money last month than McCain has raised this entire primary season. Big business knows that McCain cannot be influenced or "bought" unlike his rivals on the left side of the aisle.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Apr 4 2008, 06:33 AM)
I agree, but do you at least concede that Obama supports the idea of transparency for these things? And, unlike Clinton, he's been fully transparent about his earmarks. While I'd love to see earmarks in general disappear from the Federal budgeting process, the 2006 legislation was at least a step in the right direction.
Certainly, he says he supports the concept of eliminating pork and standing up to special interests, but McCain doesn't just say it, he does it. This is the kind of thing that I believe will enable John McCain to win the debate in the general election, and win that election. As Amlord pointed out, McCain has a history of working against special interests, working across the aisle and getting things done. He doesn't just talk about it, he does it and has his entire career. It is going to be very difficult for either Clinton or Obama to run against McCain's record. Things he's actually done, not just talked about.
Aquilla
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 3 2008, 04:07 PM)
Not really. To be fair, most (if not all) legislators use pork projects for re-election efforts and to pay back those that helped to get them elected. It is more of a reflection of where politicians stand in the country and where their priorities are than who is beholden to special interests.
Which is EXACTLY why such spending needs to be stopped. Why should MY money be spent on anyone's reelection efforts, much less, for example, Senators in Illinois or New York? Conversely, why should taxpayers in New York or Illinois spend THEIR money for reelection of anyone else's representatives. Suppose the people of Illinois received a bill for these projects--you think they'd be so thrilled about them? Of course not. This is just another example of what has turned into our favorite way to pay for large projects these days...spend other people's money on them...especially when those other people have no say in the spending or the taking of their money. Same thing with the way sports stadiums are built these days...taxes on travelers who are excluded from ever voting on the taxation. You think the people of Illinois or New York would be so thrilled with these projects if they also received the bill for them (which, if they're primarily projects for local benefit, they should)? Of course not. But, to be given these gifts from the taxpayers in other states, why, that's just dandy, of course. You are correct, AmLord, this is a reflection of where these politicians stand...it clearly shows they stand for putting personal gain ahead of the good of the country. How else could you explain spending this money for one's own reelection? Of course, they'll spin this as providing necessary services for the country, blah, blah, blah...politicians always so this. That doesn't change the fact that they're doing it as part of their reelection efforts, or the fact that in doing so they are putting their state's needs ahead of those of the country. Kudo's to McCain and the other 4 for not participating in this, and if I were him I would make this a prime focus of the campaign, as I'm not sure there's an effective counter to it.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 4 2008, 11:15 AM)
It is going to be very difficult for either Clinton or Obama to run against McCain's record. Things he's actually done, not just talked about.
On the issue of earmarks, I agree, there's no question its a strength for him. On other issues, well let's just say I see McCain with some chinks in his armor.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Apr 4 2008, 11:47 AM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 4 2008, 11:15 AM)
It is going to be very difficult for either Clinton or Obama to run against McCain's record. Things he's actually done, not just talked about.
On the issue of earmarks, I agree, there's no question its a strength for him. On other issues, well let's just say I see McCain with some chinks in his armor.
I agree and as much fun as the current food fight is among Democrats, I do look forward to the general election campaign which I think will be more issues orientated. Even the self-declared "staunch conservative" Republicans are beginning to realize that John McCain is probably the ONLY Republican candidate in the field of many who had a chance to win in November. I supported Fred Thompson early on, but he ran a crappy campaign and didn't deserve my party's nomination. John McCain, on the other hand, rose like a Phoenix (appropriate for a Senator from Arizona) and persevered. I think my party has chosen their candidate well. I'll be happy to support him.
Aquilla
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Apr 4 2008, 01:47 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 4 2008, 11:15 AM)
It is going to be very difficult for either Clinton or Obama to run against McCain's record. Things he's actually done, not just talked about.
On the issue of earmarks, I agree, there's no question its a strength for him. On other issues, well let's just say I see McCain with some chinks in his armor.
I'm still and Obama supporter but this thread is about pork Doc. So the second part of your above statement really doesn't even belong here.
This is one of the things I admire about McCain. Who ever he is against in the general election will have a hard time on this issue.
McCain and spending, especially pork, are well...enemies. McCain hasn't accepted Secret Service protection on the campaign trail yet because he views it as a "waste of taxpayer's money". His own staff doesn't know how to react to him on this. These sorts of actions speak volumes on his beliefs IMO. I don't think anyone who is paying attention can legitmately question him on his commitment to decrease spending.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Apr 4 2008, 02:47 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 4 2008, 11:15 AM)
It is going to be very difficult for either Clinton or Obama to run against McCain's record. Things he's actually done, not just talked about.
On the issue of earmarks, I agree, there's no question its a strength for him. On other issues, well let's just say I see McCain with some chinks in his armor.
.
Maybe but if you maintain you will “change” Washington than there is no issue more worthy of change than this corrupt practice that does little more than squander out tax dollars so that elected officials can please their special interests and get re elected.
So what happens in Congress – the bill gets BASHED to death – so please show me a statement from Obama or Hillary that says they will somehow “change” this.
This is the fallacy of Dem “change” rhetoric. It is clearly horse poop. And lots of it.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.