Break Away - Pork Barrel Spending

[BSmack]

Some do, yes. But that's no solution either.

[Jim Mora voice]Some do? Some do?[/Jim Mora voice]

Less riddles there. The solution is cuts to pork and gov't programs, not tax increases or borrowing. CA's problem with this is as bad or worse than the fed gov't. How hard is it to figure out that you can't spend more than you take in?

You say that as though those recieving "pork" dollars don't pump that money back into the economy. In fact, what you consider "pork" some might consider a reasonable expenditure of federal dollars.

For example, I think it is a fucking waste of money to rebuild the lower 9th Ward of New Orleans. That's nothing more than pork.

But, the people down on the Gulf Coast probably think it's a hella good idea.

See what I'm sayin?

[DrDetroit]

How hard is it to figure out that you can't spend more than you take in?

Apparently, it's very hard to figure that out.

Uh, it's easy to understand when you get the fact that the federal government can run deficits. That power alone explains deficit budgeting.

If what Clinton is saying is true, then we're borrowing money from foreign countries to "spend more than we're taking in".

The federal government has been spending more than it collects for decades and selling Treasury bonds to cover it. So what. The first time around this was an anti-Japan tirade. Now China. All this demonstrates is that the United States has the strongest economy in the world for other nations to park their cash. If this is such a bad economic idea, then why aren't other major nations reducing their investments?

Like I said, is the long term plan to have the generation of wealth and income resulting from "tax cuts" pay for this ? And will the 1% he refers to pay for this with their new found profit and such ?

No. It seems that the plan is to have the private sector to implement the majority of this effort after the federal government pays for immediate installation and repair of infrastructure. Then, through the use of government incentives spur private firms to do the bulk of rebuildng, i.e., like suspending Davis-Bacon to encourage firms to start employing people to begin rebuilding.

Or are the "powers that be" writing off the geographic republic, broadening it to include the rest of the world, and creating "pockets" of third world living, that will be easily squashed with the bending of the Posse Comitatus Act ?

Start making sense, Tom.


Food for thought.[/quote]

[Variable]

[Jim Mora voice]Some do? Some do?[/Jim Mora voice]

I laughed.

Pork usually involves construction of infrastructure such as roads, bridges or buildings that serve little to no practical purpose other than provide temporary low level employment to some dickhead congressman's district. Sure, the illegals working the road crew benefit greatly, but the country as a whole does not and the economy as a whole does not. Please don't try to argue in favor of pork...it's just silly. There's no rational argument you could give why Mississippi gets new asphalt on their freeways every few years and through-ways like I-15 between Vegas and Los Angeles haven't been paved in 25 years.

It seems that you prefer benefits that go directly to the low level worker, where I think that benefits to the company benefit both the owner and the worker in the long run. If you tax at a higher level and use that money for a pork project, you provide that illegal...errr, that low-level worker with a job for a short time, but because the company is taxed more heavily the owner can't afford to keep as many workers and has to constantly let people go. If however, you tax that company at a lower rate, it will have more money to invest in new opportunities to grow and create more jobs and will have more money to pay and keep the workers it currently has. Even if the owner were to just pocket the tax cut and not invest it in his own company, his financial advisor would invest it in another company, thus allowing that company to grow and create new jobs.

[Tom In VA]

Start making sense, Tom.

Okay.

[DrDetroit]

You say that as though those recieving "pork" dollars don't pump that money back into the economy. In fact, what you consider "pork" some might consider a reasonable expenditure of federal dollars.

Building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska is "pork." Federal grants to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is "pork."

For example, I think it is a fucking waste of money to rebuild the lower 9th Ward of New Orleans. That's nothing more than pork.

No it's not. Stafford Act. The feds have an obligation here.

The Citizens Against Government Waste offers a reasonable way to define "pork":

Pork-barrel projects are those that get federal funding by circumventing established budgetary procedures. To qualify as pork a project must meet at least one of CAGW’s 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.

Seems reasonable to me.

Re: the recent Transportation Bill:

Members of the Senate Transportation/Treasury Appropriations subcommittee paved the way for another year of reckless spending by adding 874 pork projects totaling $1.28 billion in the fiscal 2006 Senate Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act. Not satisfied with grabbing money for parochial projects, the appropriators also included $5 billion for 18 programs that the president suggested eliminating or reducing.

[BSmack]

Building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska is "pork." Federal grants to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is "pork."

Jimi Hendrix and the Alaskan trying to get to nowhere would beg to differ.

For example, I think it is a fucking waste of money to rebuild the lower 9th Ward of New Orleans. That's nothing more than pork.

No it's not. Stafford Act. The feds have an obligation here.

See, there's already disagreement. You're not in agreement with Denis Hastert that's for sure.

The Citizens Against Government Waste offers a reasonable way to define "pork":

Pork-barrel projects are those that get federal funding by circumventing established budgetary procedures. To qualify as pork a project must meet at least one of CAGW’s 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.

Seems reasonable to me.

That is fucking retarded. Every item in the budget could be classified as pork under those guidelines.

Since when is "not requested by the President" a sure sign that something is pork?

What ever happened to running a proper cost benefit analysis?

[DrDetroit]

Jimi Hendrix and the Alaskan trying to get to nowhere would beg to differ.

Link? And even if there are Alaskans demanding a bridge to nowhere, why is it a federal funding issue? It ain't except for the fact that that state has a powerful Republican Senator.

See, there's already disagreement. You're not in agreement with Denis Hastert that's for sure.

So, you don't know what the Stafford Act is nor do you want to discuss the point I raised. Okay.

That is fucking retarded. Every item in the budget could be classified as pork under those guidelines.

It's retarded because of your misperception that every budget item could be clasified as "pork?"

I said it was reasonable. However, the CAGW does indicate that "most" pork satisifies at least two of these criteria.

Do you not think that if a line item met two or more of these criteria it could be considered "pork?"

Or are you one that simply doesn't believe there is such a thing as "pork?"

Since when is "not requested by the President" a sure sign that something is pork?

Yeah, this is a difficult one to take by itself and I doubt that the CAGW does use it by itself.

What ever happened to running a proper cost benefit analysis?

You're not serious, are you? We do know that Democrats are most opposed to such an analysis when it involves any entitlement program.

[Variable]

BSmack, are you really arguing in favor of pork barrel spending? Bored? Lose a bet?

[BSmack]

BSmack, are you really arguing in favor of pork barrel spending? Bored? Lose a bet?

I'm not in favor of pork. But, I'm not so naive as to think you can just sweep away all pork without causing an economic tsunami. I also understand that what one person thinks is an "obligation" of the federal government, others think is pork.

[DrDetroit]

Talk about being naive:

But, I'm not so naive as to think you can just sweep away all pork without causing an economic tsunami.

Our economy is not based on nor supported by pork barrel spending. And your view rests on an assumption that you won't identify. What is it? Your position is that if the government doesn't collect and redistribute these dollars, the economy will fold. But that relies on a presumption that without government takings, that $$ would go unutilized or underutilized. Is that your thinking? Why?

I would contend that not only would the economy improve, but improve rapidly as the $$ not taken would be put to better economic use, i.e., invested, and would not be burdened by bureaucratic costs.

I also understand that what one person thinks is an "obligation" of the federal government, others think is pork.

Like what? Cite an example.

[BSmack]

I also understand that what one person thinks is an "obligation" of the federal government, others think is pork.

Like what? Cite an example.

Ctrl-F Hastert young padawan.

[Variable]

BSmack, are you really arguing in favor of pork barrel spending? Bored? Lose a bet?

I'm not in favor of pork. But, I'm not so naive as to think you can just sweep away all pork without causing an economic tsunami. I also understand that what one person thinks is an "obligation" of the federal government, others think is pork.

The problem is that the money and jobs associated with the pork to say pave a freeway, goes to Trent Lott's district in Mississippi to add an unneeded layer of asphalt because someone owes him a favor, instead of to the I-80 corridor between Nevada and CA that hasn't been paved in 15 years. It's all fine and dandy for the gov't to spend cash to generate jobs to stimulate the economy, but the way that it's done makes zero sense and doesn't really help anyone.

To look at it another way, wouldn't the $250 million to be spent on the bridge in Alaska be better spent as grants to tech schools for high school graduates living at the poverty level?

[DrDetroit]

I also understand that what one person thinks is an "obligation" of the federal government, others think is pork.

Like what? Cite an example.

Ctrl-F Hastert young padawan.

You'll have to be more specific.

Please cite an example or two.