Don't vote for congressional porkers!

F

Fremmer

New member
Don't like all of the pork spending earmarks that congress takes every year? Then don't vote for the porkers who've been doing it!

For example, Dennis Kucinich rails against the budget, but then pigs-out on his own pet earmarks. From this article:

Kucinich has frequently decried spending for projects that are not militarily useful. During an Aug. 19 presidential debate, for example, he advocated shifting $75 billion from what he called “that bloated, wasteful Pentagon budget” toward education programs.

And since 2005, Kucinich has pushed legislation (HR 808) that would establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence.

Kucinich voted against the Defense appropriations bill, but not before convincing the committee to include in it $1 million for a “highpower, lightweight zinc-air battery” made by Energizer Battery Manufacturing Inc., in Westlake, Ohio, which is in his district.

Kucinich did not return calls requesting comment.
Click to expand...

If you don't like overspending, why vote for a porker-presidential-candidate? Besides the kush-man, which of the presidential candidates who are presently members of congress have also had their grubby hands in the the pork-barrel trough?
 
I'm not advocating not voting. I'm a firm believer in informed voting. If a congressional candidate is running for President, one must examine the candidate's record on spending taxpayer money, especially when it comes to pork-barrel spending; actions speak louder than words. I wouldn't want to elect someone in who is part of the pork spending problem, so you gotta look at their record.

Is this not reasonable? :confused:

Here's another example of Hillary Clinton's defense appropriations earmarks:

Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks
By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman
June 13, 2007
Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

The bill contains about $5.4 billion in earmarks, or projects not requested by the Pentagon. With their slim majority, the Democrats on the panel claimed two-thirds of that sum. Clinton is among their more junior members.

... ... ...

Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total, most of which were also sought by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Clinton and Schumer agreed several years ago to go after projects together, according to several sources.

While Schumer has more seniority, Clinton has much higher name recognition and committee membership, which makes her better positioned to deliver projects for the state.

According to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton has secured 360 earmarks worth a combined $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006 in all spending and authorization bills.
Click to expand...

Hillary's gettin' pretty chunky from all them there earmarks! Fiscal discipline, indeed. :rolleyes:
 
Why limit this to congressional candidates running for President? Former governors and mayors are equally guilty of pork barrel projects.
Your thread is lame, and you have posted here often enough about this subject that most people see what you are trying to do, and who you want to talk about. Why not just give it a break?
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/01/27/GR2006012700168.html

You may notice the rise in earmarks pretty much coincides with the Republican taking over congress it the sky rockets after Bush takes office.

Here's the source material for that.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/m012606.pdf

Each chart shows a dramatic increase from 1994 to 2005.
Check out the chart on page 14. It show an increase in earmarks for the District of Columbia budget from 0 to 95, between 1994 and 2005.

I haven't found earmarks stats for before 1994, but the last chart I saw showed that the increase in earmarks between 1990 and 1994 was just as dramatic as the increase between 2000 and 2002.

Ok now check this out.
http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/congressional-earmarks-sharply-down-under-democrats
""Earmarks in fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills total around $20 billion, which is down 33 percent from the $29 billion designated in 2006 spending bills."

And this.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_porkbarrelreport#trends

That whole site is pretty revealing
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer

The number of earmarks while Republicans controlled congress grew exponentially. After the Democratic party retook congress the number of earmarks dropped by 33%.

So if you don't like earmarks vote Democratic.
 
Last edited:
The problem with that analysis is that the crop of congressional candidates running for President are still in a pork-feeding frenzy. On top of that, look at what the Kush-man and Hillary are doing: arguing against budgets, and then reserving millions of dollars in pork earmarks for themselves.

It seems to me that these earmarks demonstrate a candidate's willingness to liberally expend taxpayer dollars, yes? And the spin that they don't like the budget is interesting, too. Political doublespeak at it's finest.

Here's the pork on Obama, from this article:

Congressional Voting Records
June 22, 2007
Obama reveals his pork project requests
Barack Obama on Thursday revealed the 113 budget items he has requested in the Senate — known as "pet projects" or "pork" in the language of budget reform — and challenged his fellow presidential candidates to do the same.

Obama's more than $300 million in earmark requests range from $33 million made along with other senators for a nationwide project to promote civics among students to $125,000 to add turn lanes and traffic lights at an intersection in rural Oregon, Ill.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
be careful using fas.org as a source- they are a left wing think tank, and they are going to bash republicans as a matter of course- you might as well use moveon.org
 
If only Kucinich had not been pork barrel politician, I would have voted for him! :rolleyes:

Its such a shame no one has given you what you were trolling for here.
 
Yeah, some of these sources I don't know so well. If they are wrong, please let me know. I was hoping they'd accurately report the pork. :o

I'm not trolling for anything. What's interesting to me is the spin about how bad the budget is, and the subsequent pork earmarks that Hillary and Dennis reserve.

And if they are spending like this in congress, why expect them to spend any differently as the president?
 
Not just regular old run o' the mill pork, but defense appropriations pork. Looks like the war on terror isn't so bad for some districts. They're the ones who've been doing the spending.

We could use someone different (who, for example, won't want to spend millions of pork dollars on a 60's hippie museum) to be President.
 
Divemedic: either the numbers are accurate or they are not. I've provide more than one source to double check.
http://www.fedstats.gov/ would be another source if you want to triple check.

The fact remains that earmarks increased under the Republicans and decreased under the Democrats.
The deficit increased under Reagan/Bush, decreased under Clinton and then increased again under BushII.

Republican claims of fiscal conservatism are a bit thin of late.
 
Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks
Monday, August 06, 2007

By Brit Hume

Pet Projects

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html
 
Last edited:
One way this can be misleading is that the source of the earmarks is not specified in the paper. For example, one way to get what you want (War in Iraq) is to promise fence sitting lawmakers that you will create jobs that will get the fence sitter reelected. One way you do that is earmarks.

Say, a Democrat senator agrees to vote for war in exchange for a lucrative government project in his district.

At the same time, Presidents do not approve funding, congress does. If you research the debt and congress, you will see that both houses of congress were run by Democrats from 1969 to 1974. the Republicans ran both houses from 1974 until the Democrats wrested control of the House in 1978. Congress was split until 1990, when the Democrats took over both houses. The Republicans took both houses away in 1992, until losing the Senate in 2006.

Note that the fastest growth periods in the National debt occurred with a Democrat house and a Republican President. This is less a function of the Presidential party, and more a function of partisan politics and the deal making it causes.
 
Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks
Monday, August 06, 2007

By Brit Hume

Pet Projects
Click to expand...

I'm not even decided yet about Paul but I could smell that troll coming.

Knew it would be dropped sooner or later on this thread.

Brit Hume, I can't understand why anybody takes that guy seriously. Egg nog, what a fitting name. I doubt he has any opinions of his own but the ones he's handed.

Its plain to see, Ron Paul scares the daylights out of the pre chosen candidates, Hillbama on one side and Giuliromney on the other. Mainly because we all know what we're going to get from them, the same thing from both. Leftism.

As if I'd ever vote for Rudy in 1000 years. Or his buddy from taxachusetts. Might as well cast a vote for Hillbama and drop the play acting.
 
Fremmer said:
We could use someone different (who, for example, won't want to spend millions of pork dollars on a 60's hippie museum) to be President.
Click to expand...
Please don't take offense, Fremmer, but isn't this statement a bit naive? The budget of our federal government is $2.8 Trillion per year. Do you think this will change overnight with a new person at the helm of the executive branch?
 
Are you saying that Brit Hume is not reporting the facts? Are you also saying that Ron Paul did not request 400 million in Earmarks?
 
Don't like all of the pork spending earmarks that congress takes every year? Then don't vote for the porkers who've been doing it!
Click to expand...

As many members of congress actively does this, it's hard to find one that doesn't and supports the same views as I do.

The fact is, Paul DID ask for earmarks.
 
It sure won't change overnight; I'm not that naive! But if we want a fiscally responsible President, we may not want to elect someone who's been part of the pork system. It just doesn't seem right for a candidate to claim that spending is out of control, vote against a budget, and then earmark hundreds of millions of dollars for a pork spending spree. Those actions demonstrate fiscal irresponsibility, and a liberal perspective on the spending of taxpayer funds.

That's why I laugh when I hear Hillbama talking about fiscal responsibility; you can follow loads of pork right to their respective districts.
 
Okay then. I'll bite...

Name me a presidential candidate who is a current or former member of congress who has insisted upon receiving absolutely -ZERO- federal money for his district or state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top