Lifestyle > Train of Thought
FUCK REPUBLICANS... MUST READ (even you will agree Trauma, LOL, Jome read this)
*Jamal*:
WASHINGTON - Austerity in big-ticket government programs hasn't dulled lawmakers' appetite for special interest spending items that curry favor back home.
The spending plan awaiting President Bush's signature is packed with them, doling out $4 million for an Alabama fertilizer development center, $1 million each for a Norwegian American Foundation in Seattle and a "Wild American Shrimp Initiative," and more, much more.
Despite soaring deficits, lawmakers from both parties who approved the $388 billion package last weekend set plenty of money aside for home-district projects like these, knowing they sow goodwill among special interests and voters.
They also raised the ire of Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a pork-barrel critic who took to the Senate floor to ask whether shrimp are so unruly and lacking initiative that the government must spend $1 million on them.
"Why does the U.S. taxpayer need to fund this `no shrimp left behind' act?" he asked.
Among items in the package: $335,000 to protect North Dakota's sunflowers from blackbirds, $2.3 million for an animal waste management research lab in Bowling Green, Ky., $50,000 to control wild hogs in Missouri, and $443,000 to develop salmon-fortified baby food.
Sen. Richard Shelby (news, bio, voting record), an Alabama Republican who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee, won dozens of special items for his state — enough to fill 20 press releases.
In one aimed at northern Alabama, Shelby took credit for the $4 million budgeted for the International Fertilizer Development Center. "In addition to the important research conducted at this facility, the facility employs numerous Muscle Shoals-area residents," he noted.
Government watchdog Frank Clemente contends such special spending — often based more on a lawmaker's clout on appropriations committees than on objective factors such as a state's population — winds up costing even those who win a new road, park or research project.
"I think that's the biggest unfortunate thing about these special earmarks — they eat up billions of dollars," said Clemente, spokesman for Public Citizen. "Meanwhile they're cutting billions of dollars for environmental programs, or education programs or cops on the beat or what have you. That's kind of the unintended effect or the secret effect of these programs."
The time-honored practice flourished despite the ballooning national debt, less money for federal programs and rising concern about how government will finance the futures of Medicare and Social Security (news - web sites).
When Bush first took office, he vowed to cut pet projects from the federal budget, but the president has yet to veto a single spending bill. He is expected to sign the new plan as well.
Within hours of the spending bill's passage, lawmakers were touting the projects they brought home to constituents — a reminder that in federal budgets what is derided as pork-barrel spending by one constituency can be embraced by another as local assistance.
Missouri Republican Sens. Kit Bond and Jim Talent and Republican Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (news, bio, voting record) on Monday announced federal money for three-dozen projects in southern Missouri, including $50,000 for wild-hog control.
Ohio Reps. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Democrat, and Steven LaTourette, a Republican, boasted about $350,000 for music education programs at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland.
Nicole Williams, a spokeswoman for Tubbs Jones, said another lawmaker requested the money but Tubbs Jones supported it. With a deficit in Cleveland's public school system and music education among the programs getting cut, the museum aid could benefit the city as a whole, Williams said.
Alaska Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens claimed credit for channeling federal money to the state's salmon industry, including money to research use of salmon as a base for baby food.
"The goal is to increase the market for salmon by encouraging the production of more `value-added' salmon products," Murkowski's office said.
Michigan's two Democratic senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, let it be known they had won $4 million for an environmentally friendly public transportation system in Traverse City.
Many of the special items that made the cut were promoted by lobbyists hired by interest groups, companies or communities to convince lawmakers money was needed for their projects.
"No, a bike trail in X, Y, Z part of the country doesn't benefit the country as a whole, but the people in that district or community (also) put their money into the pot," said Jim Albertine, a lobbyist who successfully pressed for research and development money for the superconductor industry.
The targeted spending was so prolific that McCain had no problem filling a half-hour speech with examples. The shrimp program really stuck in his craw.
"I am hoping that the appropriators could explain to me why we need $1 million for this — are American shrimp unruly and lacking initiative?" he asked.
McCain's query went unanswered, in part because spending documents don't identify who proposed each item or why.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Why the fuck do they cut back on education and then come with this bullshit? Too much money? So we spend it on SHRIMP and SALMON?
2. LOOOLLLL Trauma and Jome... how do y'all feel about the $1 Million being given to the Norwegian American Foundation? Trauma, you must love this. LMFAOOOOOO HAHAHAHAHAHA
Jome:
Gotta prioritize.. ;D
Trauma-san:
Every single appropriation I read in the bill was unnecessary, and most could be funded by private sources. Almost all of them are examples of Charity, which the government has no business being in. All of this should be cut out, and taxes lowered.
*Jamal*:
--- Quote from: Trauma on November 24, 2004, 04:01:41 PM ---Every single appropriation I read in the bill was unnecessary, and most could be funded by private sources. Almost all of them are examples of Charity, which the government has no business being in. All of this should be cut out, and taxes lowered.
--- End quote ---
But since that's not the case (the taxes not being lowered), wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on more important things like education and healthcare? Or do you feel our beloved administration has made the better decision by giving it to the Norwegian American Foundation?
Jome:
--- Quote from: *Jamal* on November 24, 2004, 04:28:07 PM ---Or do you feel our beloved administration has made the better decision by giving it to the Norwegian American Foundation?
--- End quote ---
When you spend $500.000.000.000 and rising on the military in 1 year, what's $1.000.000 to the Norwegian American foundation in comparison.. ?? ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version