Pork - it's the Congressmen's dinner [Transportation bill] - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

keyshawn · 08-03-2005, 05:46 PM

Text article - source http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8BO3D801.html [2]
==============================================
WASHINGTON (AP) - When President Eisenhower proposed the first national highway bill, there were two projects singled out for funding. The latest version has, by one estimate, 6,371 of these special projects, a record that some say politicians should be ashamed of.

The projects in the six-year, $286.4 billion highway and mass transit bill passed by Congress last week range from $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Weedsport, N.Y., to $330 million for a highway in Bakersfield., Calif.

For the beneficiaries - almost every member of Congress - they bring jobs and better quality lives to their communities and states. To critics, they are pork barrel spending at its worst.

"Egregious and remarkable," exclaimed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., about the estimated $24 billion in the bill set aside for highways, bus stops, parking lots and bike trails requested by lawmakers.

McCain, one of only four senators to oppose the bill, listed several dozen "interesting" projects, including $480,000 to rehabilitate a historic warehouse on the Erie Canal and $3 million for dust control mitigation on Arkansas rural roads.

His favorite, he said, was $2.3 million for landscaping on the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California. "I wonder what Ronald Reagan would say."

Reagan, in fact, vetoed a highway bill over what he said were spending excesses, only to be overridden by Congress. Meanwhile, according to a Cato Institute analysis, special projects or "earmarks" numbered 10 in 1982, 152 in 1987, 538 in 1991 and 1,850 in 1998. The 1998 highway act set aside some $9 billion for earmarks, well under half the newest plan.

"This bill will be known as the most earmarked transportation bill in the history of our nation," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks such projects in congressional legislation.

President Bush also threatened to veto the measure over spending issues, and it took nearly two years for Congress to reach a compromise that the White House would accept.

Deciding how much will go to earmarks, however, is very much up to Congress, and few lawmakers are willing to turn down a new road or bridge in their district.

"Nothing beats a ribbon-cutting ceremony on a new piece of pavement," said Peter Sepp, spokesman for National Taxpayers Union. "Road projects are regarded as a kind of government jobs program that Republicans can safely embrace."

Lawmakers were sending out press releases bragging of their accomplishments even before the bill was passed, said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. "It's a symbol of why everything else is out of control, not just highways."

The biggest beneficiaries tend to be the lawmakers with the biggest clout.

Alaska, the third-least populated state, got the fourth most in earmarks, $941 million, thanks largely to the work of its lone representative, Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young. That included $231 million for a bridge near Anchorage to be named "Don Young's Way" in honor of the Republican.

Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., nailed down $630 million, including $330 million for the Centennial Corridor Loop in Bakersfield, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The highway bill is one area where the minority Democrats aren't forgotten. Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota, top Democrat on the Transportation Committee, listed 57 projects totaling $121 million he won for his district, from $8 million for a highway project to $560,000 for the Paul Bunyon State Trail.

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said in a press release that he had "used his seniority" on the Transportation Committee to gain $16 million for the eponymous Nick J. Rahall II Appalachian Transportation Institute at Marshall University.

Not every lawmaker came seeking gifts. Two conservative Republicans from Arizona, Jeff Flake and John Shadegg, wrote Young asking that the $14 million the committee was allotting to each House member for earmarks be sent instead to the state transportation department.

Flake's office said that in the end he didn't take any projects, and Flake and Shadegg were two of only eight House members to vote against the bill.

---

The bill is H.R. 3
=======================

My thoughts
Ahhh...good ole' government *half-snickering/grinning*

After reading the list of all the special projects - aka: PORK; I'd feel a bit annoyed and disturbed that all of those pet projects are going on while many roads and infrastructures that we travel on each day are sorely in need of repair or even a complete redesign, given the rise of urban sprawl.
But yes, after pondering for a bit, I recalled from my ap u.s. govt class this past year what really drives the pork - us. After seeing that new bike path by the house completed and the new metal signs put on Every freeway on and offramp displaying the route change that you're on [great if you're a tourist or unfamiliar to the area], it's the shiny new bike feeling, wow - the government is doing something !

Of course, some of the more notable results that the pork is being squandored on are pointed out on the citizen watchdog site - citzens against govt spending - http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...ts_highwaybill [which is a good analysis and history of the transporation bills in the 20th century, if a bit biased of course]

ex -
A second “Bridge to Nowhere” will connect Gravina Island (population: 50) with the Alaskan mainland. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) secured $220 million for this project [edit 1]

$200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Weedsport, N.Y.

In conclusion [I feel like Prof. Fink saying that] most of the time, I detest pork, but after reflecting upon it, when properly used in moderation [and of course, how much is the question I propose to my fellow TFP'ers], it can really benefit our travel and infrastructure.

PS - I'd prefer that this doesn't detract solely into a Dems v. republican or liberal v. conservative discussion; rather instead a discussion of our personal political culture [our core beliefs] on pork, which is used by members of the 3 political parties in Congress....

catcha back on the flipside,
keyshawn

joshbaumgartner · 08-03-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

PS - I'd prefer that this doesn't detract solely into a Dems v. republican or liberal v. conservative discussion; rather instead a discussion of our personal political culture [our core beliefs] on pork, which is used by members of the 3 political parties in Congress....

I agree... If anyone thinks this stuff is partisan, remember the article states that only four senators and eight reps opposed the bill.

At least these earmarks for the most part had something to do with transportation. What really gets me are riders that aren't even related to the core subject of a bill.

Josh

Elphaba · 08-03-2005, 07:39 PM

I've been wondering about this question for a long time. We have a representative that has been around long enough and on the right committee that he brings pork back constantly for projects that make no sense fiscally. My opinion is that he will never be voted out because of the enormous pork money he brings in.

Keyshawn, does you link cover all of the pork compromises by state? I'm willing to bet that many of the TFP folks would be willing to give up the local pork, just to achieve a balanced budget.

n0nsensical · 08-03-2005, 07:56 PM

I think there should be a constitutional amendment giving the president line-item veto power. What do you think? Has such a thing been introduced in Congress?

Elphaba · 08-03-2005, 07:59 PM

Several times, but it has never made it past Congress. Ironic, don't you think?

keyshawn · 08-03-2005, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

I think there should be a constitutional amendment giving the president line-item veto power. What do you think? Has such a thing been introduced in Congress?

Actually, there was once - for a very brief time, it was passed in 96, and clinton ended up using it only once before it was ruled unconstitutional by a district judge and then by the u.s. supreme court...

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto ]

It could have been introduced in congress a couple times before it actually passed, but i don't know

elphaba,
unfortunately, it doesn't - I'm looking for a breakdown of it on the net, though can't find one yet...

catcha back on the flipside,
keyshawn

n0nsensical · 08-03-2005, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keyshawn

Actually, there was once - for a very brief time, it was passed in 96, and clinton ended up using it only once before it was ruled unconstitutional by a district judge and then by the u.s. supreme court...

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto ]

It could have been introduced in congress a couple times before it actually passed, but i don't know

elphaba,
unfortunately, it doesn't - I'm looking for a breakdown of it on the net, though can't find one yet...

catcha back on the flipside,
keyshawn

But the Line Item Veto Act was just that, an act not an amendment, and that's why there should be an amendment, which being part of the constitution couldn't be ruled unconstitutional. Really I'm surprised Congress passed the law to allow it in the first place. Nice to hear the amendment has been introduced, but I doubt it will pass, nor any other amendment that doesn't involve taking away people's rights.

Elphaba · 08-04-2005, 01:34 PM

Our local paper reported on our piece of pork today and also stated the original estimate of $28M has now jumped to $33M. This little gem is for an underground tunnel for off-loading ferry traffic in the podunk town of Bremerton.

From the article: "U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, said any increase in price would be covered by more federal appropriations."

"If it's a couple million over, we'll come up with a couple million more. Whatever it takes, we're going to do it. We're committed."

Just across the water is Seattle, which has been rated as one of worst cities for transportation gridlock. Spend that pork, Normie.

joshbaumgartner · 08-04-2005, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Our local paper reported on our piece of pork today and also stated the original estimate of $28M has now jumped to $33M. This little gem is for an underground tunnel for off-loading ferry traffic in the podunk town of Bremerton.

Apparantly, the more straight forward approach of drivedown the ramp onto the ferry just didn't cut it. I've used the Bremerton ferry dock many times and I'm confused as to how they plan to integrate a tunnel into it.

Quote:

From the article: "U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, said any increase in price would be covered by more federal appropriations."

"If it's a couple million over, we'll come up with a couple million more. Whatever it takes, we're going to do it. We're committed."

Just across the water is Seattle, which has been rated as one of worst cities for transportation gridlock. Spend that pork, Normie.

No doubt regarding Seattle! Of course I don't know how you can add much more given the geography, but I was always amazed that the west side of the Sound had the freeway going all the way up into the woods where I would expect a two-laner would do the job. I know they have to support Bangor and PSNY but still, it seemed a bit much to me.

Josh

Elphaba · 08-04-2005, 02:29 PM

Josh! You're a neighbor?

joshbaumgartner · 08-04-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Josh! You're a neighbor?

Not for a long time...I lived around in Kingston for about three years 95-97 time frame, then moved back to Oregon and now have been living abroad in Texas for a few years.

Elphaba · 08-04-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

Not for a long time...I lived around in Kingston for about three years 95-97 time frame, then moved back to Oregon and now have been living abroad in Texas for a few years.

I did the Texas thing, also. It's a difficult place to live for someone from the PNW. Wishing you some cool days and some rain.

Sorry for the threadjack folks.

pan6467 · 08-04-2005, 04:43 PM

Pork is not bad.... can be in some cases, but in most there is aneed for the pork.

In a small area with little economic growth if a windfall of money for road construction comes it can and will help that economy.... all be it temporarily it can help that area build some businesses so that maybe they will grow economically after the construction is done.

Also while having a road in some area that may have been pretty will bring in traffic and help the area even more on the economic side and thus help tax revenue to be built up so that the community can build things that maybe needed.

Without the pork, the construction.... how else do you expect an area that is pretty much at a standstill to grow?

Now some of the pork for say the Grammys, a bridge in Alaska to nowhere with the congressman's name on it and so on is a bit much.

I heard some of the spending on Drudge Sun night. and while most of it will probably add economic help to some poverty ridden areas, there are some projects like the bridge in Alaska, the Grammys and such... that truly have no purpose or are far, far overpriced to the point where you wonder where the money is going to.

Not knowing Alaska, perhaps the bridge isn't just a "bridge to nowhere" but allows faster travel to oil fields or an area that is to be developed and built up as some form of tourist attraction.

I just think we need to be watchful of what is spent but we need to realize that much of the pork out there truly helps areas and our economy.... and if we complain to loudly and demand that pork be cut.... we may lose some of the necessary pork items we need to help areas that need it.

joshbaumgartner · 08-04-2005, 05:31 PM

I guess it depends what we mean by Pork. Some people basically consider just about all gov't spending pork, but I think of it pretty much as district-specific projects that might not usually warrant their own bill or appropriation, but which a member gets included in return for their support for the final bill. I.E. I'll vote for your bill if you include $2m for this pet project in my district kind of thing.

Pan, you are right, not all pork is bad, in fact I would venture that most pork does good. Whether it does better than other ways we could have spent the money is debatable by project, but most pork barrel projects are for things that will be used and will help the communities they affect.

Lets say a rep has a son with a particular disease, and so he gets a piece of pork in a bill by supporting it to build a research facility in his district to study that disease. Now we can say its gov't pork, and we can say its bad legislation because it puts that rep's personal situation before the rest of the nation. On the other hand medical research is key to improving quality of life for all Americans and it will help the community's economy, so it will do good. Should we prevent these riders as egregious pork barrel spending, or will doing that stop a lot of very good things from being built in our country?

Elphaba · 08-05-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Not knowing Alaska, perhaps the bridge isn't just a "bridge to nowhere" but allows faster travel to oil fields or an area that is to be developed and built up as some form of tourist attraction.

Pan, I read that a Native American village resides on the island and each day the children are flown to school on the mainland and then returned later in the day. This prevents the children from participating in after-school activities. Providing an additional flight to the island would seem more fiscally responsible than this bridge.

08-03-2005, 05:46 PM	#1 (permalink)
keyshawn Psycho	Pork - it's the Congressmen's dinner [Transportation bill] Text article - source http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8BO3D801.html [2] ============================================== WASHINGTON (AP) - When President Eisenhower proposed the first national highway bill, there were two projects singled out for funding. The latest version has, by one estimate, 6,371 of these special projects, a record that some say politicians should be ashamed of. The projects in the six-year, $286.4 billion highway and mass transit bill passed by Congress last week range from $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Weedsport, N.Y., to $330 million for a highway in Bakersfield., Calif. For the beneficiaries - almost every member of Congress - they bring jobs and better quality lives to their communities and states. To critics, they are pork barrel spending at its worst. "Egregious and remarkable," exclaimed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., about the estimated $24 billion in the bill set aside for highways, bus stops, parking lots and bike trails requested by lawmakers. McCain, one of only four senators to oppose the bill, listed several dozen "interesting" projects, including $480,000 to rehabilitate a historic warehouse on the Erie Canal and $3 million for dust control mitigation on Arkansas rural roads. His favorite, he said, was $2.3 million for landscaping on the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California. "I wonder what Ronald Reagan would say." Reagan, in fact, vetoed a highway bill over what he said were spending excesses, only to be overridden by Congress. Meanwhile, according to a Cato Institute analysis, special projects or "earmarks" numbered 10 in 1982, 152 in 1987, 538 in 1991 and 1,850 in 1998. The 1998 highway act set aside some $9 billion for earmarks, well under half the newest plan. "This bill will be known as the most earmarked transportation bill in the history of our nation," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks such projects in congressional legislation. President Bush also threatened to veto the measure over spending issues, and it took nearly two years for Congress to reach a compromise that the White House would accept. Deciding how much will go to earmarks, however, is very much up to Congress, and few lawmakers are willing to turn down a new road or bridge in their district. "Nothing beats a ribbon-cutting ceremony on a new piece of pavement," said Peter Sepp, spokesman for National Taxpayers Union. "Road projects are regarded as a kind of government jobs program that Republicans can safely embrace." Lawmakers were sending out press releases bragging of their accomplishments even before the bill was passed, said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. "It's a symbol of why everything else is out of control, not just highways." The biggest beneficiaries tend to be the lawmakers with the biggest clout. Alaska, the third-least populated state, got the fourth most in earmarks, $941 million, thanks largely to the work of its lone representative, Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young. That included $231 million for a bridge near Anchorage to be named "Don Young's Way" in honor of the Republican. Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., nailed down $630 million, including $330 million for the Centennial Corridor Loop in Bakersfield, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. The highway bill is one area where the minority Democrats aren't forgotten. Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota, top Democrat on the Transportation Committee, listed 57 projects totaling $121 million he won for his district, from $8 million for a highway project to $560,000 for the Paul Bunyon State Trail. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said in a press release that he had "used his seniority" on the Transportation Committee to gain $16 million for the eponymous Nick J. Rahall II Appalachian Transportation Institute at Marshall University. Not every lawmaker came seeking gifts. Two conservative Republicans from Arizona, Jeff Flake and John Shadegg, wrote Young asking that the $14 million the committee was allotting to each House member for earmarks be sent instead to the state transportation department. Flake's office said that in the end he didn't take any projects, and Flake and Shadegg were two of only eight House members to vote against the bill. --- The bill is H.R. 3 ======================= My thoughts Ahhh...good ole' government half-snickering/grinning After reading the list of all the special projects - aka: PORK; I'd feel a bit annoyed and disturbed that all of those pet projects are going on while many roads and infrastructures that we travel on each day are sorely in need of repair or even a complete redesign, given the rise of urban sprawl. But yes, after pondering for a bit, I recalled from my ap u.s. govt class this past year what really drives the pork - us. After seeing that new bike path by the house completed and the new metal signs put on Every freeway on and offramp displaying the route change that you're on [great if you're a tourist or unfamiliar to the area], it's the shiny new bike feeling, wow - the government is doing something ! Of course, some of the more notable results that the pork is being squandored on are pointed out on the citizen watchdog site - citzens against govt spending - http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...ts_highwaybill [which is a good analysis and history of the transporation bills in the 20th century, if a bit biased of course] ex - A second “Bridge to Nowhere” will connect Gravina Island (population: 50) with the Alaskan mainland. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) secured $220 million for this project [edit 1] $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Weedsport, N.Y. In conclusion [I feel like Prof. Fink saying that] most of the time, I detest pork, but after reflecting upon it, when properly used in moderation [and of course, how much is the question I propose to my fellow TFP'ers], it can really benefit our travel and infrastructure. PS - I'd prefer that this doesn't detract solely into a Dems v. republican or liberal v. conservative discussion; rather instead a discussion of our personal political culture [our core beliefs] on pork, which is used by members of the 3 political parties in Congress.... catcha back on the flipside, keyshawn __________________ currently reading: currently playing : Last edited by keyshawn; 08-04-2005 at 04:27 AM.. Reason: edited newsspeak [1]; added the link to original article [2]

08-03-2005, 07:39 PM	#3 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I've been wondering about this question for a long time. We have a representative that has been around long enough and on the right committee that he brings pork back constantly for projects that make no sense fiscally. My opinion is that he will never be voted out because of the enormous pork money he brings in. Keyshawn, does you link cover all of the pork compromises by state? I'm willing to bet that many of the TFP folks would be willing to give up the local pork, just to achieve a balanced budget. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-03-2005, 07:56 PM	#4 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	I think there should be a constitutional amendment giving the president line-item veto power. What do you think? Has such a thing been introduced in Congress? __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

08-03-2005, 07:59 PM	#5 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Several times, but it has never made it past Congress. Ironic, don't you think? __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-04-2005, 01:34 PM	#8 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Our local paper reported on our piece of pork today and also stated the original estimate of $28M has now jumped to $33M. This little gem is for an underground tunnel for off-loading ferry traffic in the podunk town of Bremerton. From the article: "U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, said any increase in price would be covered by more federal appropriations." "If it's a couple million over, we'll come up with a couple million more. Whatever it takes, we're going to do it. We're committed." Just across the water is Seattle, which has been rated as one of worst cities for transportation gridlock. Spend that pork, Normie. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-04-2005, 02:29 PM	#10 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Josh! You're a neighbor? __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-04-2005, 04:43 PM	#13 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Pork is not bad.... can be in some cases, but in most there is aneed for the pork. In a small area with little economic growth if a windfall of money for road construction comes it can and will help that economy.... all be it temporarily it can help that area build some businesses so that maybe they will grow economically after the construction is done. Also while having a road in some area that may have been pretty will bring in traffic and help the area even more on the economic side and thus help tax revenue to be built up so that the community can build things that maybe needed. Without the pork, the construction.... how else do you expect an area that is pretty much at a standstill to grow? Now some of the pork for say the Grammys, a bridge in Alaska to nowhere with the congressman's name on it and so on is a bit much. I heard some of the spending on Drudge Sun night. and while most of it will probably add economic help to some poverty ridden areas, there are some projects like the bridge in Alaska, the Grammys and such... that truly have no purpose or are far, far overpriced to the point where you wonder where the money is going to. Not knowing Alaska, perhaps the bridge isn't just a "bridge to nowhere" but allows faster travel to oil fields or an area that is to be developed and built up as some form of tourist attraction. I just think we need to be watchful of what is spent but we need to realize that much of the pork out there truly helps areas and our economy.... and if we complain to loudly and demand that pork be cut.... we may lose some of the necessary pork items we need to help areas that need it. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-04-2005, 05:31 PM	#14 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	I guess it depends what we mean by Pork. Some people basically consider just about all gov't spending pork, but I think of it pretty much as district-specific projects that might not usually warrant their own bill or appropriation, but which a member gets included in return for their support for the final bill. I.E. I'll vote for your bill if you include $2m for this pet project in my district kind of thing. Pan, you are right, not all pork is bad, in fact I would venture that most pork does good. Whether it does better than other ways we could have spent the money is debatable by project, but most pork barrel projects are for things that will be used and will help the communities they affect. Lets say a rep has a son with a particular disease, and so he gets a piece of pork in a bill by supporting it to build a research facility in his district to study that disease. Now we can say its gov't pork, and we can say its bad legislation because it puts that rep's personal situation before the rest of the nation. On the other hand medical research is key to improving quality of life for all Americans and it will help the community's economy, so it will do good. Should we prevent these riders as egregious pork barrel spending, or will doing that stop a lot of very good things from being built in our country?