An expose' on pork spending by a Senator!

[EvilMonkey]

Well, the Senator in question is John Murtha, so I guess the answer would be 'no'. I am sure there are examples on the Rep side, but here is one example of the need for term limits. This man's ego is bigger than his state! And so, apparently, is his appetite for pork.

[bmags]

term limits don't work, in my opinion.

Edited April 8, 2008 by bmags

[FlaSoxxJim]

I agree, it's incomplete reporting when a Congressperson's party affiliation isn't included in the reporting.

 

On the other hand, every time Fox News "accidentally" puts the wrong affiliation on an elected official when a scandal breaks, that's just a funny look into the fact that Fox News doesn't think much of the intelligence of the average Fox News viewer.

[EvilMonkey]

I agree, it's incomplete reporting when a Congressperson's party affiliation isn't included in the reporting.

 

On the other hand, every time Fox News "accidentally" puts the wrong affiliation on an elected official when a scandal breaks, that's just a funny look into the fact that Fox News doesn't think much of the intelligence of the average Fox News viewer.

You forgot to include CNN in that.

[lostfan]

I think it's so funny that there is so much to-do about "pork" and "earmarks" from both parties. It's part of being in the Senate and has been for a long time, it's nothing new and all of them do it (look what happened when they just voted on stopping it, Obama, Hillary, and I think McCain IIRC all voted against it but it was defeated easily). It's not the most efficient way of doing things but damn look at how the Constitution is constructed, it's like that on purpose.

 

It's just one of those latest populist rallying cries that sounds like it means a lot but in the grand scheme of things but it doesn't (like NAFTA). Someone who is crying out that they will do all these things to get rid of it will make it sound like it's destroying the national budget but all it takes is a quick look at the top of it to see what the real problems are, namely, the fact that defense spending has skyrocketed.

Edited April 8, 2008 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

The one way to fix it? Line item veto.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think it's so funny that there is so much to-do about "pork" and "earmarks" from both parties. It's part of being in the Senate and has been for a long time, it's nothing new and all of them do it (look what happened when they just voted on stopping it, Obama, Hillary, and I think McCain IIRC all voted against it but it was defeated easily). It's not the most efficient way of doing things but damn look at how the Constitution is constructed, it's like that on purpose.

 

It's just one of those latest populist rallying cries that sounds like it means a lot but in the grand scheme of things but it doesn't (like NAFTA). Someone who is crying out that they will do all these things to get rid of it will make it sound like it's destroying the national budget but all it takes is a quick look at the top of it to see what the real problems are, namely, the fact that defense spending has skyrocketed.

I do think its a problem, but not in the most obvious way. Its not a problem to spend money on these local projects per se - heck some of them are very good uses of the money. The problem is with the method. Putting an earmark for a state park in the transportation spending bill, for example, causes 2 problems. One, you make it impossible for Congresspeople to make a proper vote, because, what are they voting for? The park or the roads? And they'll get nailed to the wall by their opponents in the next election either way. And two, it makes it much more likely for the spending to become highly unfair and unguided, resulting in illogical financial policy.

 

I have suggested before, I really think that they should adopt something like what the Chicago City Council has in place (and no, I don't mean the corruption part). Take the amount of money spent on these earmarks and porkbarrel projects spend in 2007, cut it down by 25%, and set a baseline amount of money. Split that money per capita in each district, and give the congressperson that money to do with as they and their district see fit. Adjust the total amount up by a market basket measure of inflation. Voila! You get your solid local projects, cut spending, take away the whole old boy network effect, and make spending bills actually a little more on topic.

 

On a side note, I do agree with you on the whole guns and butter thing. That, and the social welfare programs (Soc Sec, Medicare) are the biggest problems in the budget.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The one way to fix it? Line item veto.

That's also one way to do it.

 

[lostfan]

The one way to fix it? Line item veto.

I think that's a good idea in principle, but my main problem with that is that it disrupts the checks and balances system and gives the president too much power.

[lostfan]

I do think its a problem, but not in the most obvious way. Its not a problem to spend money on these local projects per se - heck some of them are very good uses of the money. The problem is with the method. Putting an earmark for a state park in the transportation spending bill, for example, causes 2 problems. One, you make it impossible for Congresspeople to make a proper vote, because, what are they voting for? The park or the roads? And they'll get nailed to the wall by their opponents in the next election either way. And two, it makes it much more likely for the spending to become highly unfair and unguided, resulting in illogical financial policy.

 

I have suggested before, I really think that they should adopt something like what the Chicago City Council has in place (and no, I don't mean the corruption part). Take the amount of money spent on these earmarks and porkbarrel projects spend in 2007, cut it down by 25%, and set a baseline amount of money. Split that money per capita in each district, and give the congressperson that money to do with as they and their district see fit. Adjust the total amount up by a market basket measure of inflation. Voila! You get your solid local projects, cut spending, take away the whole old boy network effect, and make spending bills actually a little more on topic.

 

On a side note, I do agree with you on the whole guns and butter thing. That, and the social welfare programs (Soc Sec, Medicare) are the biggest problems in the budget.

Oh I don't disagree with you that it's a problem and a mess, it's just closer to "slick spot in the road" and less of the "catastrophic oil spill" that it's being made out to be. As politicians tend to do, they're blowing it all out of proportion so that they can get major cool points for being the one to take it down.

[southsider2k5]

I think that's a good idea in principle, but my main problem with that is that it disrupts the checks and balances system and gives the president too much power.

 

I don't think it does at all. You still have the veto override chance. If your line item is important enough, hopefully 60% of your chamber feels the sameway.

[lostfan]

I don't think it does at all. You still have the veto override chance. If your line item is important enough, hopefully 60% of your chamber feels the sameway.

I disagree just because of the fact that it would it would increase the number of vetos and number of times an override is needed, at least in theory (I could be completely wrong about this if it goes another way in practice too). That in and of itself upsets the balance, even if only a little.

[kjshoe04]

Did anyone else think that the emblem for the drug intelligence agency looks like a pot leaf on the door of the office? I found that kind of funny. Oh, and at least he's looking out for his constituents.

 

I think it would offset the balance a little too much as well, possibly even wasting some time going through the veto process on this. I'm sure there is a better way to handle this, but I'm not sure what it is. Except of course, voting for better people.

Edited April 8, 2008 by kjshoe04

[southsider2k5]

I disagree just because of the fact that it would it would increase the number of vetos and number of times an override is needed, at least in theory (I could be completely wrong about this if it goes another way in practice too). That in and of itself upsets the balance, even if only a little.

 

I think at first it will increase the number of vetos, but I think it will also cut down on the garbage bundling of riders onto legitmately good bills, not to mention the opposite to play the gotcha games in the elections (oh you voted to make orphans homeless, what a horrible person, nevermind it was a two line riders to a bill to fund AIDS research). I really believe overall, you will improve congressional effeciency.

[lostfan]

I agree 100% with the benefits of getting rid of the problems and I think a line-item veto would do that, I just think there's a better way although I can't think of one off the top of my head.

[Texsox]

Well, the Senator in question is John Murtha, so I guess the answer would be 'no'. I am sure there are examples on the Rep side, but here is one example of the need for term limits. This man's ego is bigger than his state! And so, apparently, is his appetite for pork.

 

We already have term limits. They come up for reelection. If you believe it is important, just vote for the other guy.

[Texsox]

I agree, it's incomplete reporting when a Congressperson's party affiliation isn't included in the reporting.

 

On the other hand, every time Fox News "accidentally" puts the wrong affiliation on an elected official when a scandal breaks, that's just a funny look into the fact that Fox News doesn't think much of the intelligence of the average Fox News viewer.

 

I'd rather they did not mention the party at all, unless it was relevant to the discussion. If the guy was trolling in an airport restroom, not important, if he is resigning, important.

[EvilMonkey]

We already have term limits. They come up for reelection. If you believe it is important, just vote for the other guy.

My throwing of the term limits in there was more in disgust at how he has been in power so long that he doesn't seem to even try to hide it anymore. He wouldn't even answer if the place he was earmarking money for even exists! I would probably like a line item veto, or perhaps a law forbidding the attachment of nor-related items to bills.

[Texsox]

My throwing of the term limits in there was more in disgust at how he has been in power so long that he doesn't seem to even try to hide it anymore. He wouldn't even answer if the place he was earmarking money for even exists! I would probably like a line item veto, or perhaps a law forbidding the attachment of nor-related items to bills.

 

I agree. There is a sweet spot where they are there long enough to understand the job, be on the right committees, have some historical perspective, etc.

 

The problem I see with term limits is real power will then reside with the people we do not elect. The staffers who stay year after year, for various officials, from both parties. Congressmen cannot be experts on every issue, so they rely on their staff to write position papers and advice. They also need to rely on their party. But at least in the end, they have to push the button and vote. Most of these staffers are very savvy individuals with a depth of knowledge that is very impressive. But I'd still want some elected officials around for continuity.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'd rather they did not mention the party at all, unless it was relevant to the discussion. If the guy was trolling in an airport restroom, not important, if he is resigning, important.

 

I understand your point but I don't agree with it, and not just because party affiliation makes for good scandalmaker fodder. The makeup of the legislature with regard to the R:D ratio largely defines the agenda of the legislature, so for general news stories I think it's good to let the audience know which side of the aisle a guy sits on as they listen to and try to digest whetever it is he's saying.

[lostfan]

I understand your point but I don't agree with it, and not just because party affiliation makes for good scandalmaker fodder. The makeup of the legislature with regard to the R:D ratio largely defines the agenda of the legislature, so for general news stories I think it's good to let the audience know which side of the aisle a guy sits on as they listen to and try to digest whetever it is he's saying.

I think most of the time when that happens people are trying to imply that one party is morally superior to another to appease the sheep in their party and get them fired up when in fact there is no such damn thing. I don't see the point in calling somebody out for doing something wrong and then going "hahaha and SEE, he's a Republicrat!" and then leaving it at that, and not making a point except to imply "lol the Republicrats are so corrupt and incompetent." At any point. Ever.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think most of the time when that happens people are trying to imply that one party is morally superior to another to appease the sheep in their party and get them fired up when in fact there is no such damn thing. I don't see the point in calling somebody out for doing something wrong and then going "hahaha and SEE, he's a Republicrat!" and then leaving it at that, and not making a point except to imply "lol the Republicrats are so corrupt and incompetent." At any point. Ever.

Heh. Republicrat. I like it.

 

[Texsox]

I understand your point but I don't agree with it, and not just because party affiliation makes for good scandalmaker fodder. The makeup of the legislature with regard to the R:D ratio largely defines the agenda of the legislature, so for general news stories I think it's good to let the audience know which side of the aisle a guy sits on as they listen to and try to digest whetever it is he's saying.

 

If you live in their District you will know if you want to vote for him or not. If you do vote in their district it wouldn't matter. If Congressman Jim saved a baby's life it doesn't matter if he's a Dem or Rep. If he's gotten 200 parking tickets, again, it doesn't matter. If he's introducing legislation, then it does, because it gives us an idea if it will pass or not, face a veto, etc.

 

The labels just create an opportunity for generalizations. Just because Congressman Alpha is a shmoe, doesn't mean Congressman Beta, from the same party, is too.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If you live in their District you will know if you want to vote for him or not. If you do vote in their district it wouldn't matter. If Congressman Jim saved a baby's life it doesn't matter if he's a Dem or Rep. If he's gotten 200 parking tickets, again, it doesn't matter. If he's introducing legislation, then it does, because it gives us an idea if it will pass or not, face a veto, etc.

 

The labels just create an opportunity for generalizations. Just because Congressman Alpha is a shmoe, doesn't mean Congressman Beta, from the same party, is too.

 

I am dumb and I need to label people and then I don't have to think too hard because it hurts my little brain.

[Chet Lemon]

Since when has Murtha been a Senator?

 

House Earmark Leaders:

Wicker (R-MS)

Murtha (D-PA)

Young (R-FL)

 

Senate Earmark Leaders:

Cochran (R-MS)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Stevens (R-AK)

 

http://www.taxpayer.net/budget/fy08earmarks/dbreport.pdf