Old news because it happens every year, but isn't it always fun to see some of new projects they're wasting our money on? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041124/ap_on_go_co/congress_favored_projects_9 Wed Nov 24, 2:50 AM ET Politics - U. S. Congress By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer 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 (news - web sites)'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
Two Million dollars for a new presidential yacht seems also seems a little much for a government that just raised it's debt ceiling to 8.4 Trillion dollars and just borrowed another 850 Billion dollars from foreign creditors. Meanwhile the Bush administration which has increased non-military spending at four times the rate of Clinton and has not vetoed a single spending bill is still trying to cut taxes further and make earlier temporary cuts permanent. Such irresponsibility violates the first rule of holes -- when you're in one, don't keep digging. How long can this bullchit go on?
and again, i don't buy that spending alot means we should raise taxes. we should never raise taxes. i dont see how the govenment going into debt matters, whereas i know raising taxes cripples the economy. so maybe in the future the government will not be able to afford to provide services. good. i hope they go bankrupt. this constant cry of "we need to raise taxes if we are gonna spend more", i dont like it. debt isnt bad. ask most anyone who has ever bought a house. they probably spent way more than their annual income. the government isnt even close to that.
This was my favorite one. I'd be willing to bet one of them has an unemployed brother-in-law who likes to hunt.
Sometimes I love John McCain. Richard Shelby has issues and should really retire. I'm getting tired of voting for him. If I cared enough I would write a letter complaining to my senior Senator, but it wouldn't change anything the man will win reelection everytime until he retires. He needs to be slapped around along with 90% of the House and Senate. It's time for the line-item veto.
I don't think that's totally true. Non-defense, non-homeland security spending has increased by a rate of less than 1% over the last 4 years. Lowest in almost 10 years. There is also a 4% cap on non-defense spending, and Clinton's spending wasn't low enough for that figure to add up. There is still no excuse for some of the spending, but there were a lot of cuts in spending. Most noteably in the EPA and Small Business subsidies department. I'll defend him on the veto measure, eventhough I think he should have took a red pen to quite a few bills, including some he was so happy about. He got bills passed that Clinton could never get a compromise on in Congress, like Medicare. If the two sides compromised, why should he veto it if it's a "solution" to a problem? It would just go back to the people in Congress and get no where. He delivered solutions or at least partial. Now I use the term solutions very loosely. :thumb:
There are many that disagree. Government Outgrows Cap Set by President: Discretionary Spending Up 12.5% in Fiscal '03 By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer "Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels. The sudden rise in spending subject to Congress's annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year. Not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip. Before those two years, spending increases of this magnitude occurred at the height of the Vietnam War, 1966 to 1968." Read the rest of the story Four more Trillion in the hole! Four more Trillion in the hole! :yelwink2: Bush budget contains $10 in new spending for every dollar in tax cuts "WASHINGTON, DC -- If you think President Bush’s tax cuts will save you money, guess again, Libertarians say, because the long-term spending increases in his new budget outnumber tax cuts by a ratio of 10 to 1. Bush presented Congress on Monday with a $2.23 trillion budget for fiscal 2004 that boosts federal spending by 4.2 percent overall while setting a record deficit and providing targeted tax cuts. But Libertarians are warning Americans not to be distracted by Bush’s tiny tax cuts – because they will be dwarfed by a massive increase in government spending over the next several years." Read the rest of the story The Bush Budget Deficit Death Spiral by Robert Freeman "Lenders talk about a “debtor’s death spiral.” It occurs when borrowers get so far in over their heads they begin borrowing money just to cover the interest payments on past borrowings. The borrowers have to do this to keep the lending flowing but they can no longer plausibly pay down the principal. As new debt compounds on old, bankruptcy becomes imminent. Further lending is foolhardy. Foreclosure is only a matter of time. The U.S. is starting to look like it is entering just such a death spiral. It is foretold not simply by the large and growing deficits, nor by the fact that their carrying costs will rise quickly as interest rates rise. Rather, it is the fact that these trends are becoming irreversible, a structural part of the U.S. economy." Read the rest of the story
That's why I said "not totally true". The Washington Post article includes homeland security and defense spending, and even says those two areas are the reason for the increase. When they take out defense spending the federal spending decreases, they then give the numbers but it's still too high. It says the homeland security is still the main reason for the remaining high spending, but continues to say spending is still high but they then give no numbers. So my poist is, you can easliy take out defense spending, but homeland security is harder to pick out, so every source will have different numbers. The Washington Post could add homeland security spending to non-defense spending and the Washington Times can overestimate on what is defense, homeland security spending. I think 4% is kind of high if you take out defense and homeland security, but if it's included it should be around 20%, which I think it is. The article is also from last year. The deficit was close to 50 to 100 billion below projected numbers last year, if I remember correctly. I made a mistake in my previous post: non-defense, non-homeland spending was under 1% only last year. It'll be interesting to see what the final numbers for 2004 are, if the decrease is a trend or not. That last article you posted was some of the most partisan BS I've ever read, in regards to Clinton and Reagan. I do like reading the different theories on the impact of the weakening dollar and all that goes with it. Edited to add: There is a great Heritage Foundation article that has all the numbers, eventhough they too don't include homeland security. They have a great reason for not including it too. There is no doubt spending was out of control the first 2 - 3 years, understandable for security reasons. It'll be a big problem if it continues, it seems to have slowed. Congress thinks it can get away with anything, and it appears they can at least for the time being. My hope is that Bush will become as hawkish on fiscal policy as he is on foreign policy, or at least partial.
I agree ashgeaux, it is time to give the president line-item veto power. Normally, I am not in favor of altering the checks and balances in our federal power sharing system (I hate giving inordinate power to any branch of govt.) but the fact is, Congress is out of control. Pres. Bush must relent on the spending bills to hold GOP consensus on national security and social issues. The minute he cracks down hard on pork-barrel spending, his own party will turn on him. Rank and file Republicans are just as bad about pork as Democrats are, and the only way to give President Bush power to hold spending under control while also giving him the political cover he needs would be to give him line-item veto. What President Bush is trying to do is to fight the war without the home front having to make any sacrifices, for fear that, if we did have to sacrifice, we would get upset that war is going on and forcing us to make sacrifices, and then demand that war stop so we could once again live our cushy lifestyles. I really am of the opinion that most Americans would gladly sacrifice whatever pet projects their local representatives have for them to get through this temporary difficulty. True, some would moan and gripe, but they could easily be made to look like selfish whiners who are not being team players. Besides, if Missouri has got problems controlling wild hogs, let Missouri handle it. Give me and my friends an old pickup with a .50 cal. mounted in the back of it and let us blaze through the woods up there. We'll take care of their wild-hog problem for a fraction of the cost!
