Here's an idea!

[bsnyder]

From the Wall Street Journal this morning:

Some public-spirited folks in Bozeman, Montana, have come up with a wonderful idea to help Uncle Sam offset some of the $62 billion federal cost of Hurricane Katrina relief. The Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports that Montanans from both sides of the political aisle have petitioned the city council to give the feds back a $4 million earmark to pay for a parking garage in the just-passed $286 billion highway bill. As one of these citizens, Jane Shaw, told us: "We figure New Orleans needs the money right now a lot more than we need extra downtown parking space."

Which got us thinking: Why not cancel all of the special-project pork in the highway bill and dedicate the $25 billion in savings to emergency relief on the Gulf Coast? Is it asking too much for Richmond, Indiana, to give up $3 million for its hiking trail, or Newark, New Jersey, to put a hold on its $2 million bike path?

Sounds like a great plan to me!

[Mackey Mouse]

I think every state can tighten their belt a bit and help the government offset the cost of rebuilding....Maybe MA could scrap their overspending on the Big Dig, and send a little to New Orleans..

Don't get me started... ;) :)

[AllyandJack]

Me, too.

Especially considering NH's portion is going for that horrible I-93 expansion.

Memo to NH Big Wigs: I don't hit traffic in NH. I hit the traffic in MA....and it's already 4 lanes down there! It's not broken. Don't fix it. Widen the breakdown lanes so minor accidents don't cause big problems and we're all set.

Send the money to LA to help them rebuild roads/bridges that were destroyed. Our turn will come in the future if it's deemed necessary. Right now...not necessary.

[AllyandJack]

I think every state can tighten their belt a bit and help the government offset the cost of rebuilding....Maybe MA could scrap their overspending on the Big Dig, and send a little to New Orleans..

Don't get me started... ;) :)


No way....how will all the contractors tile the pools at their houses if they can't skim some off the stock from the Big Dig?!

[CEDmom]

I don't have a problem with this if the money was guaranteed to go where it's intended. However, the govt needs to find some other company besides Halliburton to do the work. Using them gives a whole new meaning to "conflict of interest".

[Charade]

I don't have a problem with this if the money was guaranteed to go where it's intended. However, the govt needs to find some other company besides Halliburton to do the work. Using them gives a whole new meaning to "conflict of interest".

How so? I thought the VP didn't have any ties to them anymore.

[Tigger_Magic]

I think this would be a great idea! Three cheers for the people of Bozeman, MT!

[AllyandJack]

How could we suggest to our own states to do this?

What if we all wrote to our governors, senators, etc and referenced this and said it would be a nice idea if our state also participated? Not to say we should give ALL the money, since I'm sure there are NECESSARY road repairs in each state. But, the big unnecessary projects should be put on hold to help LA rebuild.

I might send a few e-mails this weekend and mention it to my neighbors and friends in NH.

[bsnyder]

How could we suggest to our own states to do this?

What if we all wrote to our governors, senators, etc and referenced this and said it would be a nice idea if our state also participated? Not to say we should give ALL the money, since I'm sure there are NECESSARY road repairs in each state. But, the big unnecessary projects should be put on hold to help LA rebuild.

I might send a few e-mails this weekend and mention it to my neighbors and friends in NH.

I think a grassroots effort is a great idea! I'll try to hunt around on the web later today - maybe there's something set up somewhere to facilitate this.

Yes, there are certainly vital road projects in the transportation bill, and those shouldn't be touched, but bike paths and hiking trails?

[WDWBetsy]

I agree! Good idea. :goodvibes

Just glancing at the Indiana list on the highway bill, it looked pretty wasteful. I know there are many improvements that do need to occur in our state, but many were porkish.

[ThAnswr]

How so? I thought the VP didn't have any ties to them anymore.

Sorry, Charade, the Vulcan mind meld and memory eraser only work on Star Trek.

As long as Cheney is alive and breathing, he'll have ties to Halliburton.

[ThAnswr]

I think they ought to start with the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.

[ducklite]

How so? I thought the VP didn't have any ties to them anymore.

Stock and "ties" are very different. Just because he's no longer in a decision making position doesn't mean that the good old boy network isn't alove and very well. I just left the company I worked for for over five years. I chased in my stock options, closed out my 401K and moved the money into a IRA, and even cashed in my pension money to add to another IRA. I have ZERO financial ties left. But I still ahve friends that work there and get all sorts of good gossip and such. And my old boss still calls me for help and advice.

Anne

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That is a great idea.

[bsnyder]

I think they ought to start with the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.

ITA! Brrrrrr..... :) :)

[crazyforgoofy]

Charade, I heard a talking head say recently that Mr. Cheney received something in the neighborhood of $130 something thousand dollars from Haliburton last year.

Haliburton's involvement in the rebuilding of the coast makes me unhappy.

[swilphil]

Actually Cheney received almost $195,000 in 2004, according to a White House Press Release.

[bsnyder]

Maybe this idea will catch on:


Investor's Business Daily
Printer Version | Reprints and webprints


It's Better To Give
Posted 9/14/2005

Spending: Having fallen, the federal deficit recently lost its appeal as a political issue. Now it's back. Disaster relief expenditures have set off the yammering.

The first federal relief package for the storm-ravaged Gulf Coast was $10.5 billion in emergency funds. Then came another $51.8 billion from Washington.

Professional fretters, led by gloomy columnists such as David Broder, and political opportunists are casting long shadows over the spending, declaring that it is yet another disaster created by the Bush White House. They see the deficit hitting a half trillion dollars this year.

And they, no surprise here, demonize the Bush tax cuts as part of the problem. They're not. The problem is what it always is in Washington, no matter who holds Congress or who sits in the White House: Too much spending.

There is a way out. For every buck Washington spends on Katrina relief, Congress has to cut a dollar from somewhere else in the budget. Every House member and every senator, as a show of support for the hurricane's victims, should publicly give up a pork project in their district or in their state.

This includes lawmakers from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, as well. Those states accept pork just as the other 47 do, and it's a certainty that taxpayers' dollars went to pet projects in those coastal states that could have blunted the effects of Katrina had they been used properly.

The first stop for cutting the fat should be the leviathan highway bill. That larded piece of legislation, priced at $286.4 billion, has more than 6,000 pet projects that total $25 billion. Columnist George Will writes that is "about 10 times more than the price of the levee New Orleans needed" to keep the city from flooding.

As Will also points out, "Louisiana's congressional delegation larded the bill with $540,580,200 worth of earmarks, one-fifth the price of a capable levee."

Getting a grip on this spending comes too late to have kept Lake Pontchartrain from pouring into the Crescent City, but not too late to keep the deficit from growing.

Beyond the highway bill, there are thousands of places to cut pork. How about trimming that $3.97 million dedicated for shrimp aquaculture research in Arizona (Arizona?), Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas? Or the $5.79 million budgeted for the East-West Center in Hawaii?

Congress could save $3.4 million pledged for the Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. It could forget the $1.15 million budgeted for the American Film Institute's Screen Education Program in California and the $5 million for fishing access roads in Montana.

These projects add up quickly. Citizens Against Government Waste estimates — as we noted here yesterday — that Congress in 2005 approved $27.3 billion on nearly 14,000 projects that fit the definition of pork. The watchdog group also believes that waste will cost nearly $190 billion in the current fiscal year and $1.65 trillion over the next five. So there's plenty to cut.

In addition to everyone giving up a pork project, lawmakers should also pledge that they won't include any new pet funding in future disaster relief bills for Katrina. To tack on pork would suggest a United Nations level of corruption. Keep it clean.

[ThAnswr]

Maybe this idea will catch on:

What is your complaint? You got the goverment you wanted. The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the WH. You got rid of the "tax and spend" Democrats and you've replaced them with the "spend and pass the bills on to your children/grandchildren/great-children" Republicans.

If you don't like what's going on, maybe you're voting for the wrong people? DUH!

[peachgirl]

Nope, count me out.

I don't want to give up a dime of whatever pittance we have in the bill, not as long as it's going to line the pockets of Cheney and Haliburton.

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Charade, I heard a talking head say recently that Mr. Cheney received something in the neighborhood of $130 something thousand dollars from Haliburton last year.

Haliburton's involvement in the rebuilding of the coast makes me unhappy.

Cheney's deferred compensation is a flat amount guaranteed by independent insurance contracts. Compensation is not based on Haliburton's success or even its existance.

Add: It's money he already earned years ago. It's often customery to spread out executive compensation to future years for tax purposes.

[bsnyder]

What is your complaint? You got the goverment you wanted. The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the WH. You got rid of the "tax and spend" Democrats and you've replaced them with the "spend and pass the bills on to your children/grandchildren/great-children" Republicans.

If you don't like what's going on, maybe you're voting for the wrong people? DUH!

Nope, count me out.

I don't want to give up a dime of whatever pittance we have in the bill, not as long as it's going to line the pockets of Cheney and Haliburton.

Where did I say I had a complaint?

It's an idea. Some people think it's a good idea. Some may think it's not workable. That's fine too. But there's really no need to act like a petulant six year old.

[sodaseller]

Cheney's deferred compensation is a flat amount guaranteed by independent insurance contracts. Compensation is not based on Haliburton's success or even its existance.

Add: It's money he already earned years ago. It's often customery to spread out executive compensation to future years for tax purposes.
All true. But there is no doubt that all of Cheney's compensation was "earned" due to perceived or actual governmental influence. There is also no doubt that his position as VP continues to assist them in getting business, though he will not profit from it unless he ever returns.

[JoeEpcotRocks]

All true. But there is no doubt that all of Cheney's compensation was "earned" due to perceived or actual governmental influence. There is also no doubt that his position as VP continues to assist them in getting business, though he will not profit from it unless he ever returns.

I think we're on the same page.

Although, it's hard to prove one way or another on how much his influence currently helps Haliburton (although most of us are often cynical re the influence of politicians in general).

I mainly take issue with those who:

(a) think Haliburton's current business success or new transactions are "lining Cheney's pockets" or

(b) always begin playing evil music in the background whenever Cheney or Haliburton is mentioned.

[dixipixi]

:flower: I just wanted to thank you all for your kind heartedness! :flower:

I live in La. and it has been very hard around here lately. Our area sustained a lot of wind damage, but we are much better off than areas to the south of us.

The generosity of the American people has helped pull us through this. I have shed many tears over the last couple of weeks. I have cried because I was tired, hot, covered with itchy mosquito bites, and over what myself and others have lost. I have also cried at the sight of big trucks full of relief supplies from all over the country. Until you are trying to survive in over 90 degree weather with no power, you just don't realize how wonderful a truck full of water and ice can be!

There are no words to describe how truly grateful we all are for the help we have received. For everything from water to crews of workers from all over the country helping us rebuild....we are deeply thankful! :flower:

[sodaseller]

I am certain that VP Cheney never communicates in any way that anyone with contracting authority should hire Halliburton. I am equally sure that procurement officers or civilian officials will still favor Halliburton because they perceive they should - nothing needs be said. I am also certain that the more Halliburton is hired, the less qualified competetitors are out there for the next job - it's a self-perpetuating cycle. I am also certain that Halliburton did not hire then formed SecDef Chaney based on his 2-3 years in the private sector in his teen years. Methinks the remainder of his life, all in government, was the key draw to a company that exists almost exclusively on government contracting. I am also certain that he never truly "managed" the company.

That said, it was scandalous that it took media exposure to require that Halliburton's performance receive routine audits that are supposed to be automatic. But the bigger scandal was that the CPA hired young ideologues instead of experienced reconstruction operatives - who knows how much that damaged the mission? But those experienced professional were known by State and were "ideologically unreliable."

I will also note that here in Florida Republican Tom Lee is leading the battle to end cronyism and the revolving door. Of course,, I will also note that he is former Democrat that switched because no one can get elected in east Hillsborough County as a Democrat, and that he is as far left as Republican can get in this state. He is one of my favorite politicians in the state, and his battles against lobbyists have made him enemies, such that he may have an opponent bankrolled in his CFO race

[bsnyder]

:flower: I just wanted to thank you all for your kind heartedness! :flower:

I live in La. and it has been very hard around here lately. Our area sustained a lot of wind damage, but we are much better off than areas to the south of us.

The generosity of the American people has helped pull us through this. I have shed many tears over the last couple of weeks. I have cried because I was tired, hot, covered with itchy mosquito bites, and over what myself and others have lost. I have also cried at the sight of big trucks full of relief supplies from all over the country. Until you are trying to survive in over 90 degree weather with no power, you just don't realize how wonderful a truck full of water and ice can be!

There are no words to describe how truly grateful we all are for the help we have received. For everything from water to crews of workers from all over the country helping us rebuild....we are deeply thankful! :flower:

Nice post! I hope the recovery efforts in your part of LA go swiftly and smoothly!

[bsnyder]

Some more examples of places to look for spending cuts:

A "Victory" Over Wasteful Spending? Hardly
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #839

September 14, 2005 | |



House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) today declared “victory" in the battle to eliminate wasteful federal spending. There is simply no fat left to cut from the federal budget, he said.[1]



This comes as quite a surprise to most Americans. With federal spending now topping $22,000 per household, polls indicate that 71 percent of Americans are more bothered by how their taxes are spent than by the amount of taxes they pay. The average American believes that about half of his or her tax dollars are wasted.[2]



The American people have a point. There is so much fat in government spending—from $300 million bridges to islands with 50 residents in Alaska to billions of dollars in overpayments by federal departments—that it is hard to know where to begin. Declarations of victory are, to say the least, rather premature.



The Majority Leader has issued a pledge, however, to those concerned about the emergency spending that Congress is now appropriating: "My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it.” In response to that good-faith commitment, this paper lists a few easy places to start cutting, although they are just the tip of the waste iceberg.



Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

In the twenty years since the Grace Commission first shined a spotlight on waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government, the problem has continued to build. For many lawmakers, executive oversight has taken a backseat to the higher priority of securing pork projects. Here are several current examples of federal waste that should be extremely uncontroversial to rein in:



The federal government made $20 billion in overpayments in 2001;

The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets from 1997 to 2003 and never bothered to collect refunds, even though the tickets were reimbursable;

Massive farm subsidies go to several members of Congress and celebrity “hobby farmers” such as David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Scottie Pippen, and former Enron CEO Ken Lay; and

Numerous government programs are wastefully duplicative, such as the 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water.
This page lists 25 more particularly egregious examples of waste, fraud, and abuse.



In addition, the federal government cannot account for $24.5 billion that it spent in 2003. More attentive congressional oversight could uncover where this money went and whether some or all of it could be saved and put to better use.



Pork

Lawmakers spend much of their time diverting federal money to specific projects in their home states. Many of these pork projects are bought and sold by lobbyists, who, for a generous commission, help clients to obtain government grants without having to go through the regular channel of justifying projects to a federal agency. Since 1998, the number of pork projects has leapt from 2,000 to 14,000 per year. The Fiscal Year 2005 omnibus spending bill includes these spending items:



$450,000 for the Baseball Hall of Fame;
$97,000 for the Franco-American Heritage Center in Lewiston, Maine;
$25,000 to develop a curriculum to study mariachi music in the Clark County, Nevada, School District;
$350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, Ohio;
$150,000 for the Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program at the Lady B Ranch in California;
$950,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
$250,000 for the Police Activities League Center in Anaheim, California
$2,000,000 to relocate a kitchen in Fairbanks, Alaska; and
$250,000 for the Alaska Statehood Celebration.
This page lists many more particularly egregious examples of pork barrel spending from the FY 2005 appropriations omnibus.



Failed Programs

Because good intentions alone are not enough to make good government, President George W. Bush created the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to assess whether government programs actually achieve their objectives. After the first three years of PART, 60 percent of all federal programs have been examined. Out of 1,236 programs measured, only 38 percent were rated “effective” or “moderately effective.” By contrast, 40 percent were deemed either “ineffective” or unable to demonstrate results. Yet in FY 2004, $154 billion was appropriated for programs classified as ineffective or unable to demonstrate results.[3] Congress largely ignored President Bush’s calls to terminate many of these programs.



Find PART ratings from the Office of Management and Budget on this page, and look here for an overview of PART’s results to date.



Unauthorized Appropriations

Congressional rules require that all funded programs undergo regular reauthorization so that Congress can audit funding and modernize enabling statutes. Yet in 2005, 167 unauthorized programs received $170 billion in federal funds. Many of these controversial programs lack the votes for reauthorization, but Congress quietly funds them anyway. In 2005, programs funded with expired authorizations include:



Americorps,
The National Endowment for the Arts,
The National Endowment for the Humanities,
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and
Community Development Block Grants.
The entire list is available from the Congressional Budget office on this page.



Clearly, Congress could save tens of billions of dollars by simply enforcing its rule against appropriating funds to programs that do not have the support to be reauthorized.



Conclusion

Rep. Delay has asked for offsets, and now Congress should act upon them. A renewed war on wasteful spending could easily save $100 billion or more per year, enough to offset the expenses of responding to Hurricane Katrina, as well as the costs of other priorities. If lawmakers have the will, there is certainly the waste.



Brian Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[mickeyfan2]

A good idea, but sadly I think Montana will be the only one.

[Charade]

Nope, count me out.

I don't want to give up a dime of whatever pittance we have in the bill, not as long as it's going to line the pockets of Cheney and Haliburton.

$14 million for reconstruction of a crosstown expressway in Oklahoma City. :confused3

[peachgirl]

$14 million for reconstruction of a crosstown expressway in Oklahoma City. :confused3

Now I know I'm not giving it up!:sunny:

If you'd ever been to OKC, you'd know that's hardly a pork barrel project.

[Charade]

Now I know I'm not giving it up!:sunny:

If you'd ever been to OKC, you'd know that's hardly a pork barrel project.

Just checking!!

[sodaseller]

Rep. Delay has asked for offsets, and now Congress should act upon them. A renewed war on wasteful spending could easily save $100 billion or more per year, enough to offset the expenses of responding to Hurricane Katrina, as well as the costs of other priorities. If lawmakers have the will, there is certainly the waste.



It is impossible to stamp out "waste", but no doubt there is plenty more to be cut. That said, there is no way there is $100 billion in waste to be cut. Not remotely close.
2005 Baseline for discretionary non defense $437 billion with $511 billion for defense. That's with a $348 billion projected deficit, and I suspect these umbers are dated without Iraq supplementals (they definitely do not include Katrina). No way that 25% of non defense discretionary can be cut. People need to know teh numbers when they make claims like that

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5773&sequence=2

This should give some perspective to the cost of Iraq - over $300 and climbing, likely worth a years of defense spending.

[yeartolate]

I think they ought to start with the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.

Boy, tha tis the first thing that came to my mind. :rolleyes:

[Free4Life11]

I think they ought to start with the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.

Yeah!

Where can I find a list of what the money is going to? I want to see what good old Nebraska wants to spend their share on.

[bsnyder]

Here's an update on the PorkBusters project, from the WSJ today:


The idea of a pork-for-reconstruction swap had already been denounced as "moronic" by a spokesman for Don Young of Alaska, Chairman of the House Transportation Committee and proud father of the now-infamous $223 million "bridge to nowhere" near Ketchikan. Since then the White House and Congressional Republican leadership have been acting as if the cost of Katrina relief should have no impact on the course of an administration that has presided over the fastest growth in discretionary spending since Lyndon Johnson.

But thankfully, a grassroots Internet campaign and a handful of House GOP conservatives have refused to give up on the idea that spending cuts should be found to defray the estimated $200 billion federal price tag for hurricane relief. In the Senate, John McCain is proposing a similar pork-for-Katrina swap.

The Internet campaign picks up on the idea of revisiting the earmarks in the Highway Bill. A Web site called Porkbusters (www.truthlaidbear.com/porkbusters.php) helpfully lists these projects by state and directs readers to the appropriate Representatives and Senators to ask what they would cut. Around the country a flood of letters to local newspapers has echoed the theme.

And if revisiting the Highway Bill is too much to ask, how about a one-year moratorium on all non-defense earmarks for fiscal 2006? Rep. Ron Lewis (R., Kentucky) proposes just that in a "Dear Colleague" letter dated Monday. Other suggestions include across-the-board spending cuts at federal agencies of 2.5 cents on the dollar and delaying the introduction of the Medicare drug benefit by a year. We should be hearing more today when members of the House Republican Study Committee -- led by consistent spending hawks such as Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling and Jeff Flake -- announce "Operation Offset" and a list of specific options to find savings in the budget.

[Charade]

Pork By State
$ 34,851,072,461 in pork identified so far

State Total Pork Found
Alabama $ 235,565,010
Alaska $ 2,997,483,647
American Samoa
Arizona $ 3,259,909,619
Arkansas $ 62,573,000
California $ 2,878,439,108
Colorado $ 98,073,074
Connecticut $ 14,450,000
Delaware $ 76,165,727
District of Columbia $ 7,050,000
Florida $ 33,749,832
Georgia $ 33,380,000
Guam
Hawaii $ 29,823,000
Idaho $ 6,285,000
Illinois $ 417,349,726
Indiana $ 106,072,410
Iowa $ 104,719,221
Kansas $ 534,875,000
Kentucky $ 142,000,000
Louisiana $ 2,171,483,647
Maine $ 179,347,800
Maryland $ 40,093,822
Massachusetts $ 129,508,100
Michigan $ 4,297,367,394
Minnesota $ 84,429,050
Mississippi $ 10,058,000
Missouri $ 153,800,225
Montana $ 84,879,000
Nebraska $ 6,400,000
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey $ 145,000,058
New Mexico $ 39,600,000
New York $ 3,215,999,309
North Carolina $ 2,832,331,647
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio $ 2,195,441,152
Oklahoma $ 269,408,000
Oregon $ 242,880,000
Pennsylvania $ 431,964,027
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island $ 150,000,000
South Carolina $ 2,147,483,647
South Dakota
Tennessee $ 251,400,064
Texas $ 3,889,278,152
U.S. Virgin Islands
Utah $ 138,400,003
Vermont $ 147,315,740
Virginia $ 124,860,000
Washington $ 27,025,000
West Virginia $ 329,895,250
Wisconsin $ 77,460,000
Wyoming

[sodaseller]

Pork By State
$ 34,851,072,461 in pork identified so far

State Total Pork Found
Alabama $ 235,565,010
Alaska $ 2,997,483,647
American Samoa
Arizona $ 3,259,909,619
Arkansas $ 62,573,000
California $ 2,878,439,108
Colorado $ 98,073,074
Connecticut $ 14,450,000
Delaware $ 76,165,727
District of Columbia $ 7,050,000
Florida $ 33,749,832
Georgia $ 33,380,000
Guam
Hawaii $ 29,823,000
Idaho $ 6,285,000
Illinois $ 417,349,726
Indiana $ 106,072,410
Iowa $ 104,719,221
Kansas $ 534,875,000
Kentucky $ 142,000,000
Louisiana $ 2,171,483,647
Maine $ 179,347,800
Maryland $ 40,093,822
Massachusetts $ 129,508,100
Michigan $ 4,297,367,394
Minnesota $ 84,429,050
Mississippi $ 10,058,000
Missouri $ 153,800,225
Montana $ 84,879,000
Nebraska $ 6,400,000
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey $ 145,000,058
New Mexico $ 39,600,000
New York $ 3,215,999,309
North Carolina $ 2,832,331,647
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio $ 2,195,441,152
Oklahoma $ 269,408,000
Oregon $ 242,880,000
Pennsylvania $ 431,964,027
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island $ 150,000,000
South Carolina $ 2,147,483,647
South Dakota
Tennessee $ 251,400,064
Texas $ 3,889,278,152
U.S. Virgin Islands
Utah $ 138,400,003
Vermont $ 147,315,740
Virginia $ 124,860,000
Washington $ 27,025,000
West Virginia $ 329,895,250
Wisconsin $ 77,460,000
Wyoming

Are we to read that to understand that in Nevada, New Hampshire, etc, there is no pork? If so, that would cast doubt upon the author's methodology. I can't imagine that there is any state without it

[bsnyder]

Are we to read that to understand that in Nevada, New Hampshire, etc, there is no pork? If so, that would cast doubt upon the author's methodology. I can't imagine that there is any state without it

I think the answer is in "pork identified so far" at the top of Charade's post.

[wvrevy]

Pork By State
$ 34,851,072,461 in pork identified so far

State Total Pork Found

West Virginia $ 329,895,250

Good ol' Senator Byrd. :rotfl: If there's a road or an overpass in this state without his name on it somewhere, I haven't seen it.

I've seen that number before, by the way, and I wouldn't quite agree with it. Oh, there's no doubt that WV gets a portion of pork well out of contrast with the number of people we have. But there actually are some projects included in that number that benefit more than just WV'ians. For example, in the "pork" a few years ago was listed the new FBI fingerprint lab that is in Clarksburg, WV, and that's hardly a "pork" project. It had to be built somewhere, and because Byrd and Rockefeller were able to get it here, some people labled it a "pork" project.

But again...there's no doubt that cuts could be made. I'm just not sure that, even with the billions that would likely result, it could really make up the difference. Either something else will have to be done to help offset those costs - read: tax increases - or else we'll just be handing the bill to our children and grandchildren to pay.

[bsnyder]

Good ol' Senator Byrd. :rotfl: If there's a road or an overpass in this state without his name on it somewhere, I haven't seen it.

I've seen that number before, by the way, and I wouldn't quite agree with it. Oh, there's no doubt that WV gets a portion of pork well out of contrast with the number of people we have. But there actually are some projects included in that number that benefit more than just WV'ians. For example, in the "pork" a few years ago was listed the new FBI fingerprint lab that is in Clarksburg, WV, and that's hardly a "pork" project. It had to be built somewhere, and because Byrd and Rockefeller were able to get it here, some people labled it a "pork" project.

But again...there's no doubt that cuts could be made. I'm just not sure that, even with the billions that would likely result, it could really make up the difference. Either something else will have to be done to help offset those costs - read: tax increases - or else we'll just be handing the bill to our children and grandchildren to pay.

It's certainly not an either/or proposition. It can be a combination of measures.

[Charade]

If it's clearly pork, it should be cut regardless of the critical need for those funds elsewhere. Just give me back my share of the pork!!

[DawnCt1]

I believe that one of the US Senators from Alabama offered to cancel his pork project.

[mickeyfan2]

My state gets only slightly more than WV and the population is much larger. What are my senators and reps doing wrong? :rotfl:

[wvrevy]

My state gets only slightly more than WV and the population is much larger. What are my senators and reps doing wrong? :rotfl:
Now you know why I'm in favor of term limits, but only if they are undertaken on a national scale...Byrd is the senior member of the senate, and both he and Rockefeller are on critical committees, and are thus able to add in whatever pork they like (though, the vast majority is by Byrd, not Rockefeller). In the senate, particularly, there is power in longevity. Because of that, we get a greater share than many others, simply because of those two men and their positions.

But as long as other states can do it, I would never support term limits on the state level. As much as Byrd may have dented the national pocketbook over the years, he really has done a great deal of good for this state (and it needs all the help it can get, at times).

[bsnyder]

Now you know why I'm in favor of term limits, but only if they are undertaken on a national scale...Byrd is the senior member of the senate, and both he and Rockefeller are on critical committees, and are thus able to add in whatever pork they like (though, the vast majority is by Byrd, not Rockefeller). In the senate, particularly, there is power in longevity. Because of that, we get a greater share than many others, simply because of those two men and their positions.

But as long as other states can do it, I would never support term limits on the state level. As much as Byrd may have dented the national pocketbook over the years, he really has done a great deal of good for this state (and it needs all the help it can get, at times).

FWIW, I agree with your reasoning. But hey, what happened to the "greater good" liberal mentality? :) :)

[DawnCt1]

I just called Chris Shay's office because there was a big old picture of him posing with the recipients of the pork filled highway bill in Ct. It can go. I called Sen. Dudd's office as well. P.S. In case anyone is wondering, Shay is a Republican better known as a RINO.

[ThAnswr]

Now you know why I'm in favor of term limits, but only if they are undertaken on a national scale...Byrd is the senior member of the senate, and both he and Rockefeller are on critical committees, and are thus able to add in whatever pork they like (though, the vast majority is by Byrd, not Rockefeller). In the senate, particularly, there is power in longevity. Because of that, we get a greater share than many others, simply because of those two men and their positions.

But as long as other states can do it, I would never support term limits on the state level. As much as Byrd may have dented the national pocketbook over the years, he really has done a great deal of good for this state (and it needs all the help it can get, at times).

I don't believe in term limits for any elected position, even president. I believe the people are the ones to decide when someone should be replaced and not an arbitrary law or amendment.

[Tigger_Magic]

I don't believe in term limits for any elected position, even president. I believe the people are the ones to decide when someone should be replaced and not an arbitrary law or amendment. :scratchin Twice in one day I am in agreement with ThAnswr. Must be a full moon or the autumnal equinox??? :teeth:

[wvrevy]

I don't believe in term limits for any elected position, even president. I believe the people are the ones to decide when someone should be replaced and not an arbitrary law or amendment.
If the people would stay well informed on the issues of the day and the actions of their representatives, I would absolutely agree. But what do you think the percentage is of the population of Tom Delay's district that knows what's going on with him regarding the ethics investigation and his buddies all being indicted ? 25% ? As high as 50% ?

Term limits would assure that there was no such thing as a "career politician". You wouldn't have people in congress for 50 years, with no real connection to their home states other than a "home" address that they only see during election years. People always complain about "business as usual", but, just as I stated before, I'm not putting my gun away until everybody else does. Forced "disarmament" is the only option.

[mickeyfan2]

I think that there should be term limits too.

[Tigger_Magic]

If the people would stay well informed on the issues of the day and the actions of their representatives, I would absolutely agree. But what do you think the percentage is of the population of Tom Delay's district that knows what's going on with him regarding the ethics investigation and his buddies all being indicted ? 25% ? As high as 50% ?

Term limits would assure that there was no such thing as a "career politician". You wouldn't have people in congress for 50 years, with no real connection to their home states other than a "home" address that they only see during election years. People always complain about "business as usual", but, just as I stated before, I'm not putting my gun away until everybody else does. Forced "disarmament" is the only option. While I agree that term limits would prevent career politicans, they also impose a rather arbitrary breach on the electorate's basic right to choose a representative government. There are no requirements that state voters must be knowledgeable or informed about the individuals running for various offices. I agree it is a sad situation that many are uninformed and vote based on either habit, name recognition/ballot placement, party affiliation, etc. But imposing term limits takes away the voter's basic right to choose, even when the choices are less than desirable.

[ThAnswr]

If the people would stay well informed on the issues of the day and the actions of their representatives, I would absolutely agree. But what do you think the percentage is of the population of Tom Delay's district that knows what's going on with him regarding the ethics investigation and his buddies all being indicted ? 25% ? As high as 50% ?

Term limits would assure that there was no such thing as a "career politician". You wouldn't have people in congress for 50 years, with no real connection to their home states other than a "home" address that they only see during election years. People always complain about "business as usual", but, just as I stated before, I'm not putting my gun away until everybody else does. Forced "disarmament" is the only option.

I don't think being a "career politician" is in and of itself a bad thing. Career politicians know how to run government and may even be less beholden to the special interests because they don't need them for political survival.

And I still believe, regardless of the choices, the voters have a right to decide.

[wvrevy]

Don't confuse "politician" with "statesman". :teeth: While I agree that someone who has been in politics for a while will most likely know how to govern (though, that's not a given), it also stands to reason that they know how to milk the system for personal gain.

Political campaigns at the national level (congress and the presidency) cost tens of millions to run...all for a job that pays considerably less. The system is just too conducive to corruption. (See the recent travel scandals on both sides of the aisle for plenty of evidence of that.

Term limits would help alleviate that somewhat, I believe. Actually, that's more "I hope" than "I believe", but it's certain that the current system isn't helping the matter.

I agree that it should be the voter's right to decide who is going to represent them in Washington. But the way the system is run now, it's practically impossible to unseat a long-term incumbant (though not impossible). They just have too much influence and too much money. As many people as there are in this country, it shouldn't be all that difficult to find another person that shares your political ideals that you can vote for. There's really no reason why it has to be the same person, for decades on end.

[Charade]

I think that there should be term limits too.

The term "Career Politician" is an oxymoron. Well, if it isn't, the moron part about covers it.

[sodaseller]

While I agree that term limits would prevent career politicans, they also impose a rather arbitrary breach on the electorate's basic right to choose a representative government. There are no requirements that state voters must be knowledgeable or informed about the individuals running for various offices. I agree it is a sad situation that many are uninformed and vote based on either habit, name recognition/ballot placement, party affiliation, etc. But imposing term limits takes away the voter's basic right to choose, even when the choices are less than desirable.
I agree. Michael Kinsley calls it the "stop me before I vote again" principle, the Cincinnatus myth

[sodaseller]

Plus, I generally like politicians and think it is a more honorable profession that we accept, and that our pervasive cynicism on that subject does real damage.

[Planogirl]

The trouble with term limits is that we lose those politicians who actually do a good job. They're so rare that you want to hang on to them for as long as possible IMO.

[bsnyder]

The trouble with term limits is that we lose those politicians who actually do a good job. They're so rare that you want to hang on to them for as long as possible IMO.

I'm wracking my brain and I can't think of a one that we couldn't easily do without. There's some I like and respect, but I don't think it would make a bit of difference to the country if they retired.

[ThAnswr]

Plus, I generally like politicians and think it is a more honorable profession that we accept, and that our pervasive cynicism on that subject does real damage.

I totally agree.

We do have hacks in the political, but we also have some very good people who take their job very seriously.

It's the same with denigrating the civil servants. Keeping the wheels of government is an important. Plus, we could've probably found 10,000 people among the civil service lists that could've done a better job with Katrina.

[Charade]

We do have hacks in the political, but we also have some very good people who take their job very seriously.

.

The ones that are very good (examples???) are generally the ones that don't run to a microphone or TV camera whenever the chance presents itself. They are also the ones that generally don't spew lots and lots of rhetoric.