pork barrel spending
The annual tax-expenditure bill satisfied the standards of a “good” golden parachute - it provided pork only to key players and its revenue loss was controlled. Table 1 tracks the escalating number of earmarks in nine of the 13 appropriations bills that Congress must enact each year to fund the federal government, compared with the growth of inflation-adjusted federal domestic discretionary spending over the same intervals of time. Table 1 tracks the escalating number of earmarks in nine of the 13 appropriations bills that Congress must enact each year to fund the federal government, compared with the growth of inflation-adjusted federal domestic discretionary spending over the same intervals of time.
Between FY 1985 and FY 1999, the growth in annual earmarks increased substantially faster - between 25 to 1,000 times faster in most cases - than inflation-adjusted federal domestic discretionary spending.
According to the Pig Book , New York Sen. That totals $296.2 million.
The American people are just as responsible for pork barrel spending as are our Congressmen. We spend all our time debating who will be the best candidate for president, but totally ignore those who are running for Congress.
The War for OIL is a bigger concern to our country than PORK barrel spending. At least with the issue of POrk Barrel Spending, the money stays in our own country where it came from and isn’t wasted in another country to ensure the future deaths of many and the additional wealth to the few well connected soulless OIL crownies that feed our current Administration.
Pork barrel spending is nothing less than theft of the taxpayers’ money. 99% of it is a total waste: bridges to nowhere, and junk science studies to determine how many fruit flies can dance on the head of a pin.
I don’t think I can support a blog - or a book they brag about - that says “John McCain had no pork barrel spending”.
In my opinion, pork barrel spending is just a tip of the iceberg. The term pork barrel, while literally meaning a barrel in which pork is kept, is more commonly used as a political metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for projects that are intended primarily to benefit particular constituents or campaign contributors. This usage originated in American English with reference to gifts of salt pork in a barrel by slave-owners to their slaves.
The term pork barrel politics refers to government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. Tom Coburn , a staunch opponent of pork barrel spending, tried to block $453 million for two Alaska bridges that had been tucked into the recent highway bill.
The Pig Book says Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama, a senator representing Illinois, sponsored 53 earmarks in 2007 that totaled $97 million. The presumed Republican Party presidential candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona, opposes pork barrel spending and sponsored no projects earmarked for his constituents. A Washington-based taxpayer watchdog group called Citizens Against Government Waste publishes an annual Congressional Pig Book that details pork barrel spending.
Alot of American cities could use some of the pork barrel funds that have been spent on the mistake that is Iraq.
It’s misleading to say that Clinton was 1st and Obama second. Good for McCain, though he authorized the biggest pork barrel project - the Iraq War.
It’s important to note that the top overall pork barrel spenders were Republicans.
For pork project spending totals, see Citizens Against Government Waste, “Pork Barrel Report,” 2007, at www.cagw.org/site/PageServer? Although much of the media coverage of congressional pork projects and earmarks emphasizes the wasteful nature of such spending, the often humorous nature of this approach obscures a more troubling consideration: the extent to which the use of earmarked spending reflects Congress’s increasing propensity to micromanage local affairs, override local priorities, and in the process undermine state and local decisionmaking in determining local needs and solutions. Although much of the media coverage of congressional pork projects and earmarks emphasizes the wasteful nature of such spending, the often humorous nature of this approach obscures a more troubling consideration: the extent to which the use of earmarked spending reflects Congress’s increasing propensity to micromanage local affairs, override local priorities, and in the process undermine state and local decisionmaking in determining local needs and solutions. Table 1 tracks the escalating number of earmarks in nine of the 13 appropriations bills that Congress must enact each year to fund the federal government, compared with the growth of inflation-adjusted federal domestic discretionary spending over the same intervals of time.
A “donor state” is a state whose share of the federal fuel tax receipts paid into the highway trust fund exceeds the federal transportation spending it receives from the trust fund.
It also exhibits the same pattern of escalating earmarks revealed in Table 1.
Although appropriations bills often are the vehicle of choice for location-specific pork-barrel spending, other legislation - including bills to authorize and reauthorize programs and emergency supplemental spending legislation - have hauled pork from Washington to privileged towns and cities across America.
Although the Military Construction bill contained a little less than 500 earmarks, those earmarks accounted for 42 percent of all spending in the bill.
Between FY 1985 and FY 1999, the growth in annual earmarks increased substantially faster - between 25 to 1,000 times faster in most cases - than inflation-adjusted federal domestic discretionary spending.
As the 106th Congress gets underway, there will be no shortage of opportunities to show restraint and moderation in federal spending, earmarks, and congressional micromanagement.
Congress got much of the blame for this spending, but President Bill Clinton also was an active participant.
Congress’s other major attempt to control pork-barrel spending occurred in 1995 when it enacted the line-item veto as part of the Contract With America. Bringing up the rear is John McCain with $0 in pork spending.
As for our current Presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton is on top with $292.2 million in pork spending spanning 281 individual projects.
Ed Pastor, a nine-term lawmaker who serves on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which largely controls federal spending.
Overall, Democratic freshmen in the House were among the biggest recipients of pork-barrel spending, often securing more money than more senior lawmakers, according to the fiscal watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Actually winning taxpayer savings requires that Congress use this transparency to remove all pork projects from the spending bills.
Transparency will allow taxpayers and lawmakers to see how much of the new spending will go toward pork.
Why Pork Projects Are Harmful In the past, Congress created grant programs and either distributed the money to state and local governments by formula or instructed federal agencies to distribute the grants through a merit-based application process.
Lawmakers could save taxpayers $2,400 per household over the next decade by first eliminating all planned pork projects, and then eliminating the $23 billion slush fund that was created to finance the projects.
Interestingly, Congress responded to the President’s call by adding $23 billion in new non-defense discretionary spending to the President’s request. This additional $23 billion slush fund nearly matches the amount of new spending needed to restore pork-barrel spending to its 2006 peak of $29 billion without any offsets within the programs.
The $23 Billion Slush Fund Remains President Bush has called on Congress to halve pork-barrel spending from last year’s level of $13.3 billion.
The House’s blueprint reduces the President’s defense proposal by $3 billion, thereby increasing non-defense spending by $23 billion above the President’s request.
The House budget adds $20 billion to the President’s $933 billion discretionary spending request.
That bloated budget hog, which John McCain unabashedly supports, makes requests seem like pennies in comparison.
I sincerely wish that pork was our only problem but if we cut out 100% of extraneous spending of earmarks it would hardly make a dent in our budget. The war in Iraq will cost well north of $3 trillion when its all said and done.
Though $17 billion would certainly be nice to have in my bank account, when viewed as a portion of the total federal budget, about $3 trillion) is is a tiny portion .
If you look at total spending of the Earmarks by party, the Democrats out spent the Republicans and Independents together by over a Billion dollars .
Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same.
It shows partisanship by intentionally sensationalizing the spending of the whole list and making it appear to the casual reader that all 17.2 billion dollars is because of Clinton and Obama.
Sorry Obama and Clinton, the facts support McCain for unselfish political spending and pandering.
Obama ranked 69th. Frankly, I have no problem with him adding spending on things like ethanol research.
In extra spending. Reading the Pig Book is an embarrassment with the number of people in this country that cannot buy food, lost their homes, and they had to cut-back.
McCain and Hillary have already voted, and will cost much more than the pork spending.
Clinton and Obama are 1 and 2 in pork spending and McCain is last with zero.
It was voted on as a specific item, not only by McCain, but by the majority of Congress, including many liberal Democrats.
Nearly all the comments ignore the definition of “pork” Pork is when projects are added to bills and when the bill is voted on the pork is included, although it is not specifically voted on, and has no valid connection. Republicans in Congress say they are serious about cutting spending, but they learned yesterday to keep their hands off the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
Coburn’s measure, offered as an amendment to the 2006 transportation appropriations bill, failed 82 to 15.
