Dog Bites Man: Earmark Abuse Continues in Washington

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
...even among freshmen who campaigned against such abuse:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-08-freshmen_N.htm

From beaches to ball fields, freshmen members of Congress are requesting about $11 billion this year to pay for pet projects in their districts, even though some made an issue of the spending in campaigns last year.

Forty-two of 54 freshmen House members requested money for the projects, known as "earmarks."
Click to expand...

Maybe Congressman Teague would like to explain to all us taxpayers (suckers) across the country why we should be paying for baseball fields in Las Cruces, New Mexico, if we aren't residents of Las Cruces. Or maybe not. I'm guessing not.

Remember, this is just freshmen's requests, and they amount to $11 billion. It is estimated that world hunger could be solved with $30 billion. About 6 million people have lost jobs in the last couple of years; $11 billion would provide $1,833.33 to each of them for job training, unemployment benefits, education, grants to start businesses, or whatever else we might want to try. Or we could just be $11 billion less in debt, which we are massively in to an unsustainable level due to the incompetence of Congress, the immediate past president and the current president.

Or, even better, they could give the $11 billion to me and a nice chunk of it would trickle down to struggling video-game companies. ;)
 
earmark abuse is a problem but far too often people consider any earmarks to be abuse.. which isn't the case

do you oppose all pork?

i oppose much of it.. but certainly not all.

your commentary also seems to be implying that money spent = money gone.. not quite the case.. that's like treating revenue as profit.. $11 billion spent on projects does not have the same net cost as $11 billion spent on overseas humanitarian efforts or paying off debt. when spent on these sorts of domestic projects, a large portion of that $11 billion comes back in other forms.
 
[quote name='Koggit']do you oppose all pork?[/QUOTE]

By definition, yes. Pork is money secured by a member of Congress or three for a project that otherwise wouldn't be funded. Which is why the government is building baseball fields in Las Cruces and restoring beaches in Florida. These are not federal issues and should not be funded with federal money.

your commentary also seems to be implying that money spent = money gone.. not quite the case.. that's like treating revenue as profit.. $11 billion spent on projects does not have the same net cost as $11 billion spent on overseas humanitarian efforts or paying off debt. when spent on these sorts of domestic projects, a large portion of that $11 billion comes back in other forms.
Click to expand...

Do you think money is better spent on baseball fields for some favored locality or on something worthwhile for millions of Americans?
 
so, do you think people in less prosperous / dense areas should not have access to quality museums, etc?

or do you think they should, and just receive the funding through more transparent means? should the congressmen propose their projects in separate legislation instead of slipping it in legit bills?

like i said, i oppose a lot of the pork (e.g. any place in florida with beaches worth restoring is likely a strong enough tourist spot to afford it themselves) but there are certainly cases in which i find it acceptable (civics, infrastructure, etc for rural or poor districts)... i understand why some people would oppose even the latter and i chalk that up to just a difference of opinion... but since you propose overseas humanitarian efforts as a possible use of the money, i'm guessing you don't oppose having the fortunate help the less fortunate.
 
There are very few quality museums out there. I'm sure a Tea Museum is not on anyone's highly desirable Museum lists (Note: NC used public money to build a tea museum that cost about 2 million dollars).
 
still doesn't address my point..

i can only think of three stances

(a) oppose all projects that get pigeon-holed as "pork", even the legit projects. do not ever believe federal funds should go to local projects regardless of validity and need. (option of unreasonably myopic dissent)

(b) oppose some pork projects, are okay with federal money going to the legit projects, but oppose the method in which congressmen get their projects passed and believe congressmen should make their proposals separate from other legislation (option of reasonable dissent)

(c) oppose some pork projects, are okay with federal money going to the legit projects, and though some money is wasted on unnecessary pork, feel that since it's not a very large source of net government expenditure and allows legit pet projects to get funding, it's fairly acceptable. not great, or even good, but acceptable. (option of agreeing with koggit -- you guys probably wanna avoid this one)


unless you go (a), it's disingenuous to throw around figures like $11b or use "pork" at large.. feel free to enlighten me with a (d)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Koggit']still doesn't address my point..

i can only think of three stances

(a) oppose all projects that get pigeon-holed as "pork", even the legit projects. do not ever believe federal funds should go to local projects regardless of validity and need. (option of unreasonably myopic dissent)
[/QUOTE]

I'd have to side with your (a). Although you sabotaged the entire statement with "even legit projects". "Legit project" is always going to be relative. Each and every "legit project" deserves a debate in congress for that reason. I don't see anything legit beyond maybe help in building hospitals and some schools. And even then, only if the city/state can show, through open books, legitimate reasons it can't raise the money itself.

It's simple -- Each municipality is responsible to budget and make money on their own for their own growth and projects. What pork allows, is gross mismanagement and corruption, because they can always squeeze the government tit for anything they need after shitting their money away. Allowing pork is allowing bad decisions without consequences.

I see pork as simply the bank bailouts on smaller scales. Only worse, because the government (us) don't retain any ownership in the pork project that very few people will enjoy. It's free money, no strings attached.

And your other two points have truth to them as well. Local projects have no business being in giant bills. If a local project is deemed important enough by a congress person to need federal funds, it should be separately debated. If it can't get to the floor to be debated, it isn't important enough.
 
I'm going to go with a. It has been a few days since somebody with two fewer college degrees than me has called me stupid. That and thrustbucket is right. If there was real validity and need, the entire Congress could be brought to determine if tax receipts from Florida should be used to study bear DNA in Montana or remove arsenic from a water table in Maine.
 
It'd be interesting to calculate how much money one minute of congress's time actually costs. Hundreds of politicians, thousands of staff, other operational expenses.. how much of their time does a $50,000 funding proposal warrant?

Another interesting aspect is the incentive earmarks give to congresspeople to write good legislation. If a congressperson writes a good enough bill, they can stick in a few earmarks and it'll still pass, which helps them immensely in reelection (e.g. "I got funding for renovating your sports arena, vote for me").

I shouldn't be surprised that conservatives so vehemently oppose "spreading the wealth around", as it were. It's a strange phenomenon.. it's the red states that would suffer most, were blue states not sending money in to bolster their floundering economies.. which I have no problem with. We all have great quality of life here in America, and nobody will ever make enough money.. might as well stop worrying about money and just help those who don't quite have as it good as you/we do. I don't mind sending a few bucks from Seattle's booming economy to Montana.

You mention residents in Florida paying for the Montana study.. I'm sure Montana's one of the top on the list for federal funding-received-per-tax-dollar-paid it'd actually be interesting to know where Florida stands.. do they actually send more to Washington than they get back? I'm not so sure. That's another thing to consider.. since every state has pet projects, the burden's never quite as high as it sounds. Give and take.
 
[quote name='Koggit']so, do you think people in less prosperous / dense areas should not have access to quality museums, etc?

or do you think they should, and just receive the funding through more transparent means? should the congressmen propose their projects in separate legislation instead of slipping it in legit bills?

like i said, i oppose a lot of the pork (e.g. any place in florida with beaches worth restoring is likely a strong enough tourist spot to afford it themselves) but there are certainly cases in which i find it acceptable (civics, infrastructure, etc for rural or poor districts)... i understand why some people would oppose even the latter and i chalk that up to just a difference of opinion... but since you propose overseas humanitarian efforts as a possible use of the money, i'm guessing you don't oppose having the fortunate help the less fortunate.[/QUOTE]

I didn't propose using it to alleviate world hunger, just to use that number for some perspective. I hold a strong belief that at this point in time, with trillion-dollar spending plans and bailouts the norm, people have forgotten how much "even" a billion dollars is. People like Chuck Schumer think we don't care about the billions they pork-barrel around, and I think a lot of people don't because they don't see that as a large amount of money. They should.

On museums: let local/state governments pay for them if they want to. Why should our federal tax money go to pay for a cotton museum in Hicksville, Mississippi? Or the Woodstock museum in New York? Or whatever museum? If that state or locality wants to fund something, fine, that is the decision of that state or locality. But don't make me, as a Virginian, pay for your idea of a good museum in Alaska that I'll never use and is not a national asset.

As for transparency, it's all fine and good, but as you mention it needs to be voted on separately. If Congress actually voted on each one of these items separately, that would be an excellent start as to culling many of them. The system right now is "don't object to mine, I won't object to yours, they both are part of a 5,000-page bill that nobody will read, we're all good." Needless to say this encourages corruption and waste (see Murtha, John; Moran, Jim; Mollohan, Alan; Cunningham, Duke; Ney, Bob; Jefferson, William; Stevens, Ted; Byrd, Robert; Young, Don; and any number of others).
 
[quote name='rickonker']Isn't money that isn't earmarked just left for the executive branch to spend?[/QUOTE]

If it's appropriated that way, then yes. Of course, cutting out $1.5 million from the budget that is going to build baseball fields in Las Cruces is $1.5 million less in debt left to our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']If it's appropriated that way, then yes. Of course, cutting out $1.5 million from the budget that is going to build baseball fields in Las Cruces is $1.5 million less in debt left to our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren.[/QUOTE]
Wait, what do you mean? If that $1.5 million isn't earmarked, wouldn't Obama or Bush or whoever just spend it on something else?
 
let's be clear: my original point was that not all pork should be thought of us such superfluous pet projects. these figures like $11b have a lot of funds going to infrastructure and legitimate civics projects, and it's disingenuous for politicians to grandstand about "$11 billion on earmarks like a woodstock museum".

addressing your (el p) post: it's just a difference of opinion. i object to some earmarks and approve of others, but i don't think it's a big deal -- [1] i don't want politicians making political decisions (in congress, there's no other kind) if presented with each of these proposals separately, [2] it's not a big net loss or gain for any state because every state does it, [3] the spending isn't as bad as it seems at first glance because these domestic projects provide good economic stimulus, [4] politicians who help their district get reelected, which is an incentive for legislators to write good bills (so that they can slip in a couple earmarks and get it passed).

on a grander scale: people think differently. it's fundamental. it's like privacy.. some care a lot, others don't. those who care a lot tend to be more independent, caring a lot about personal liberties and freedom, don't want to give or receive much help of any kind. these are people like thrust. nothing wrong with it, just a certain belief system that i don't share. i don't care as much about my personal privacy, my wealth, etc, i care more about the big picture and don't mind sacrificing to improve that big picture. it's why political arguments never go anywhere. i can say "but don't you care about backwater texas' economy?" and your response is "no". that's fine. we're not gonna change anyone's mind..

fixing: the problem is most people often believe what they believe so passionately that they need to change peoples minds. they get their panties in a bunch when things are going the other way. for 8 years, liberals whined. now conservatives whine. predictable and unavoidable. we could be more moderate, but then extremists whine. if there were only $500m in earmarks then the Ron Paul-type conservative extremists would still whine about waste and the Olbermann-type liberal extremists would still whine about lack of funding. because of the fundamental differences in thought, in ideals, we'll never all agree.. the world's a rosier place as soon as it's acknowledged. instead of arguing we can just state our opinions and say "oh, you think that way.. i don't.. okay."
 
[quote name='Koggit']let's be clear: my original point was that not all pork should be thought of us such superfluous pet projects. these figures like $11b have a lot of funds going to infrastructure and legitimate civics projects, and it's disingenuous for politicians to grandstand about "$11 billion on earmarks like a woodstock museum".

addressing your (el p) post: it's just a difference of opinion. i object to some earmarks and approve of others, but i don't think it's a big deal -- [1] i don't want politicians making political decisions (in congress, there's no other kind) if presented with each of these proposals separately, [2] it's not a big net loss or gain for any state because every state does it, [3] the spending isn't as bad as it seems at first glance because these domestic projects provide good economic stimulus, [4] politicians who help their district get reelected, which is an incentive for legislators to write good bills (so that they can slip in a couple earmarks and get it passed).

on a grander scale: people think differently. it's fundamental. it's like privacy.. some care a lot, others don't. those who care a lot tend to be more independent, caring a lot about personal liberties and freedom, don't want to give or receive much help of any kind. these are people like thrust. nothing wrong with it, just a certain belief system that i don't share. i don't care as much about my personal privacy, my wealth, etc, i care more about the big picture and don't mind sacrificing to improve that big picture. it's why political arguments never go anywhere. i can say "but don't you care about backwater texas' economy?" and your response is "no". that's fine. we're not gonna change anyone's mind..

fixing: the problem is most people often believe what they believe so passionately that they need to change peoples minds. they get their panties in a bunch when things are going the other way. for 8 years, liberals whined. now conservatives whine. predictable and unavoidable. we could be more moderate, but then extremists whine. if there were only $500m in earmarks then the Ron Paul-type conservative extremists would still whine about waste and the Olbermann-type liberal extremists would still whine about lack of funding. because of the fundamental differences in thought, in ideals, we'll never all agree.. the world's a rosier place as soon as it's acknowledged. instead of arguing we can just state our opinions and say "oh, you think that way.. i don't.. okay."[/QUOTE]

QFF.

When people at the two "extremes" both opposed the Iraq war and people in between supported it, it means there's something wrong.
 
nobody really supported the war at the end, but at the beginning my perception was that it was a very wide range of people, leaning conservative, who supported a "war on terror" in an effort to improve national security..

but if you disagree with the post you quoted then perhaps you could explain your take a little more, rather than just citing a single subjective anecdote..
 
[quote name='Koggit']nobody really supported the war at the end, but at the beginning my perception was that it was a very wide range of people, leaning conservative, who supported a "war on terror" in an effort to improve national security..

but if you disagree with the post you quoted then perhaps you could explain your take a little more, rather than just citing a single subjective anecdote..[/QUOTE]
OK, I'll try to be more specific.

At the beginning, as you know, there were many conservatives who wanted a war with Iraq. There were also actual conservatives who were strongly against it. Pat Buchanan was one.

There were also progressives who wanted war, and progressives who didn't. Your scale puts people who were anti-war at both extremes, and extreme warmongers somewhere in the middle. I think that means your scale is flawed and not very useful.

And therefore I think your "grander scale" description isn't accurate either. Instead it's a good example of a false dichotomy...take both of your posts together, and you're almost suggesting that the more you care about freedom, the more pro-war you were. Which is what most conservatives wanted everyone to believe.
 
it's perfectly reasonable for both schools of thought to support/oppose the war.

cons support: want national security
cons oppose: don't wanna spend a lot on foreign policy.

libs support: wanna bring peace to volatile region
libs oppose: don't wanna do it by force

i think the independent / selfless dichotomy stands strong despite a mixed reaction to the war along party lines..
 
[quote name='Koggit']it's perfectly reasonable for both schools of thought to support/oppose the war.

cons support: want national security
cons oppose: don't wanna spend a lot on foreign policy.

libs support: wanna bring peace to volatile region
libs oppose: don't wanna do it by force

i think the independent / selfless dichotomy stands strong despite a mixed reaction to the war along party lines..[/QUOTE]

I agree that some people had different reasons to support or oppose the war, but you have them wrong. Your "libs support" reason was used by many conservatives, and they weren't all lying. Your "libs oppose" reason was also sincerely used by some conservatives.

There is a dichotomy, but
1) it sure isn't split between conservatives and progressives as you're suggesting, and
2) independent / selfless isn't it, because many people are obviously both independent and selfless.
 
i think your (1) is misinterpreting what i'm suggesting and i simply disagree with (2).. i don't wanna argue semantics but independent != strictly dependent on others. the way i'm using independent to describe cons is both in giving and receiving help -- in that sense, you cannot be independent and selfless. if you only operate within your own realm, you are about as selfish as can be. not that selfish is bad. it's not. we're all very selfish, to an extent. that's natural. it's required for survival.

perhaps closed/open would be better terms for it?

i base it off of these observations:

cons:
more nationalistic
favor small government, so that they keep more money
less welfare
less government humanitarian efforts
concerned about protecting "rights" (e.g. less government regulation / oppression)
less freedom for exchanging personal information (e.g. big brother complex)
etc

libs:
more globalist
favor large government, even if they have to pay more for it
more welfare
more government humanitarian efforts
less concerned with "rights"
openness to sharing private information (e.g. doesn't care about ubiquitous tracking)
etc

you gotta admit it's pretty consistent.. the red mindset desires a smaller world, cares about locality & self, the blue mindset desires a unified world, cares about big picture & is selfless.

neither is better than the other.. my description is likely to sound biased toward libs because of course that's where i fall, but i don't mean to belittle cons' beliefs..
 
[quote name='Koggit']i think your (1) is misinterpreting what i'm suggesting and i simply disagree with (2).. i don't wanna argue semantics but independent != strictly dependent on others. the way i'm using independent to describe cons is both in giving and receiving help -- in that sense, you cannot be independent and selfless. if you only operate within your own realm, you are about as selfish as can be. not that selfish is bad. it's not. we're all very selfish, to an extent. that's natural. it's required for survival.

perhaps closed/open would be better terms for it?[/quote]

You're saying you cannot give help without receiving it?

i base it off of these observations:

cons:
more nationalistic
favor small government, so that they keep more money
less welfare
less government humanitarian efforts
concerned about protecting "rights" (e.g. less government regulation / oppression)
less freedom for exchanging personal information (e.g. big brother complex)
etc

libs:
more globalist
favor large government, even if they have to pay more for it
more welfare
more government humanitarian efforts
less concerned with "rights"
openness to sharing private information (e.g. doesn't care about ubiquitous tracking)
etc

you gotta admit it's pretty consistent.. the red mindset desires a smaller world, cares about locality & self, the blue mindset desires a unified world, cares about big picture & is selfless.

neither is better than the other.. my description is likely to sound biased toward libs because of course that's where i fall, but i don't mean to belittle cons' beliefs..
Click to expand...

Your description is consistent with itself but not with the real world. There are plenty of progressives even here on CAG who would probably object to your saying they're less concerned with "rights" and privacy. And you're giving conservatives way too much credit if you think they're all worried about Big Brother.

I'm sure there are a few people who fit each of your two profiles, but that doesn't make a dichotomy, because there are way too many people left out. In fact I'd say the majority of people are left out.
 
[quote name='Koggit']okay whatever

feel free to re-read my posts if you want to understand what i've already written[/QUOTE]

I just think your understanding is wrong, or should I say incomplete. You made a few observations and stretched them way too far in order to construct that dichotomy.

Again, the problem is that it doesn't cover enough people. The more you observe, the less sense your dichotomy makes.
 
it seems to me you just won't see any deeper than the issues, but the issues themselves are too complex to use anecdotally

a person can have the open lib-oriented selfless mindset and still oppose invasive security measures for less obvious reasons (e.g. sexual predators, thieves, political corruption, etc).. picking apart a single issue has nothing to do with my point because each issue has multiple angles that can't be isolated

but, seriously, i don't wanna keep going in circles. the past dozen or so posts have felt like a waste of time, which cumulatively have sucked at least 30min from my short life.
 
[quote name='Koggit']it seems to me you just won't see any deeper than the issues, but the issues themselves are too complex to use anecdotally

a person can have the open lib-oriented selfless mindset and still oppose invasive security measures for less obvious reasons (e.g. sexual predators, thieves, political corruption, etc).. picking apart a single issue has nothing to do with my point because each issue has multiple angles that can't be isolated

but, seriously, i don't wanna keep going in circles. the past dozen or so posts have felt like a waste of time, which cumulatively have sucked at least 30min from my short life.[/QUOTE]

OK, I think I get your point. You're saying people are either "open" or "closed", and this leads them to have different stances on various issues. Even when an open person has the same stance as a closed person, according to you, it must be for different reasons, because all people must either be open or closed.

But I should point out that you arrived at this open vs. closed thing in the first place by analyzing human preferences (including political stances), right? So what you said yourself, "each issue has multiple angles that can't be isolated," brings up some questions.

I think another possible dichotomy would be "peaceful vs. violent". It would be somewhat difficult to describe a given person as either "open" or "closed", because those concepts become a little fuzzy when it comes to a specific issue, as you pointed out. Peaceful vs. violent seems much clearer to me at the issue level.

Edit: In other words, how do you classify someone as open or closed? From what you've said, I take it you do that by looking at their stances. One problem with this is, like you said, you can't be sure if a person holds a particular stance for an "open" reason or a "closed" reason. So I'm guessing what you do is maybe try to guess if a lot of a person's stances follow a typically open or typically closed view. Or maybe you just go by their D or R label, but that would be kind of circular.

One reason I brought up "peaceful vs. violent" as an alternative is that you can look at a person's stance on one issue and classify it as one or the other much more easily, based only on that one stance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top