The Cracks are Showing

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your still not understanding that it's the pork and not the bill. To say that Bush didn't want it because of the environmental benefits is just an outright liberal lie. Show me anywhere that supports this. Your stories are all slanted to the liberal side. Arguing with liberals is a total waste of time. Your slant is all you see.

Let me state it one more time. If all the pork were taken out of this bill Bush would have signed it. You are defending the waste.

S. Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark., cast a vote Tuesday to override a presidential veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (H. R. 1495 ).

Boozman believes the veto should be overridden, and most of his colleagues in the House agree, James said before the House vote on Tuesday.

"Today, the WRDA bill, the override vote, is going to come up. And the congressman is going to override the president's veto on that. … I understand his concerns. But what it boils down to is, this bill has been seven years in the making. And if you get a bill with seven years worth of projects on it, it's going to be a little expensive. But it's not willy-nilly spending. It's all stuff that people need, that's going to make people safer, by protecting floodplains and all kinds of stuff like that. And there are two major projects in the 3 rd District that we're going to vote to make sure (they ) stand. I think the president understands that." ~ Ryan James, Boozman's communications director.

http://nwanews.com/bcdr/News/55461/

The point is still sailing a mile over your head Steven, the water bill had supporters. The water bill was a good measure. The massive amounts of pork made it something that had to be killed. Don't you get it? You can post a thousand stories of people and groups that support the water bill but the fact there is massive amounts of pork in it is why it got vetoed. Wake up man!!!!

I guess we should define just what you think is pork barrel spending. Just what provisions in the bill do you believe were nothing but pork barrel projects? Gary, you're defying conventional wisdom on this one in light of the fact that this bill was voted to override the President's veto with all the provisions in it by an overwhelming majority of bipartisanship. It was 7 (SEVEN) years of going back and forth to the President. Again, you don't bat an eye to the money spent in Iraq (tax payer's money) that has gone to private companies who were granted no-bid contracts by the Bush Administration...and yet you have the gall to think that domestic infrastructural spending (which has been supported widely among conservation and environmental groups) as pork barrel. And the consequence of this taking 7 years, we see places like Des Moine where thousands of people have been forced to evacuate their homes because of flooding. The voters won't forget this one either come November....mark my words.

.....

Pork barrel claim holds no water

Where’s the oink? Both houses of Congress voted to override President Bush’s veto of the $23 billion Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Bush had dismissed the extensive, expensive bill as pork barrel spending, that is special-interest projects that benefit only a congressman’s immediate constituency.

But this so-called pork isn’t oinking.

We know what the oink sounds like. It sounds a lot like the ever-changing Iowa Rainforest-Iowa Child-Iowa Earthpark project that won $50 million in federal funding before it even found a home. The Quad-Cities turned down this porker years ago, and since then it’s been pitched, welcomed and then rejected by three other Iowa communities. Last we heard, Pella is on the hook for this oft-punted project.

That oink is pure pork, loud and clear.

The Water Resources Act is a collection of very specific projects for communities facing strategic needs they cannot address themselves. For example, it gives Rapids City, S.D., area communities help drawing water from the ample Missouri River supply since their current Cheyenne River supply is dwindling. It helps further rebuild New Orleans levees and protect areas of the Everglades.

Around here, it helps upgrade some Illinois and Mississippi River locks. The lock renovations have faced deep scrutiny and the Army Corps of Engineers responded by making the projects better. Half of the $3.7 billion cost is covered by a tax the barge industry imposes on itself. The match from the rest of federal taxpayers seems prudent.

More importantly, the act authorizes $256 million in environmental restoration and protection in critical upper Mississippi River areas around here. This initiative by the Corps of Engineers will help mitigate the effects of barge traffic and, hopefully, help bolster the corp’s Rock Island District role as environmental protector of our river.

After Congress carefully deliberated this package, President Bush summarily vetoed the whole deal claiming the country can’t afford it. We welcome President Bush’s late second-term conversion to fiscal restraint and wish he’d gotten that religion much sooner. He wasn’t as frugal when Republicans ran Congress, approving virtually every spending bill, cutting taxes and authorizing blank check after blank check for war.

This veto override doesn’t spend a nickel. What it does is put a long list of projects in line for upcoming appropriations bills, which still require full congressional consideration. That appropriation process assures the entire $23 billion won’t be funded.

The Water Resources Act is a smart list of well-vetted projects that Congress has put in line for funding. The president might not know the difference between pork barrel spending and political consensus. Our thanks to the majorities of Democrats and Republicans in Congress who do.

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/11/14...59667517092.txt

.....

You and McCain keep supporting Bush on such issues and you'll see the fruits of that come November.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Beats the hell outta me. He did a lot of things that don't make any sense.

Anything but what he says huh?

Bush is not exactly trustworthy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There was mention of "beach replenishment" in a post a while back. I'd hardly call that "pork", while it does have an obvious angle to preserve tourism $$$, the obvious reason for rebuilding/repairing beaches is to prevent or mitigate marine erosion at the coasts. Storms do a lot more damage if there's no beach to absorb the wave energy...

[GaryC 7]

There was mention of "beach replenishment" in a post a while back. I'd hardly call that "pork", while it does have an obvious angle to preserve tourism $$$, the obvious reason for rebuilding/repairing beaches is to prevent or mitigate marine erosion at the coasts. Storms do a lot more damage if there's no beach to absorb the wave energy...

There were almost 900 additional requests for funds in this bill. Picking out the few that may be worthy isn't addressing the problem of the overall pork problem. Again I will state it, if this bill were passed without the pork Bush would have signed it. The pork is the reason it was vetoed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There was mention of "beach replenishment" in a post a while back. I'd hardly call that "pork", while it does have an obvious angle to preserve tourism $$, the obvious reason for rebuilding/repairing beaches is to prevent or mitigate marine erosion at the coasts. Storms do a lot more damage if there's no beach to absorb the wave energy...

There were almost 900 additional requests for funds in this bill. Picking out the few that may be worthy isn't addressing the problem of the overall pork problem. Again I will state it, if this bill were passed without the pork Bush would have signed it. The pork is the reason it was vetoed.

Gary, Bush has the worst environmental record of any president. Even Nixon signed into law, the Endangered Species Act. Bush thinks those projects are not worthy of federal funds and that's why he vetoed it. He's just calling it pork barrel as an excuse. His definition of pork barrel is not the real definition of pork barrel - spending that only benefits a congressman's constituents.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There was mention of "beach replenishment" in a post a while back. I'd hardly call that "pork", while it does have an obvious angle to preserve tourism $$$, the obvious reason for rebuilding/repairing beaches is to prevent or mitigate marine erosion at the coasts. Storms do a lot more damage if there's no beach to absorb the wave energy...

There were almost 900 additional requests for funds in this bill. Picking out the few that may be worthy isn't addressing the problem of the overall pork problem. Again I will state it, if this bill were passed without the pork Bush would have signed it. The pork is the reason it was vetoed.

Well that's what Bush said was the reason. As to what he actually considers to be "pork" spending is surely a different question entirely.

The example I cited about "beach replenishment" speaks to exactly that point - the article you posted claims references that project as an example of "pork", but without knowing much about the specifics of that project you can't really say with any certainty whether or not it amounts to some sort of frivolous pet project. The article doesn't really provide any specific detail.

In short - the choice is to either take the president and the writer of that article at their word - or you don't and you want more information to decide for yourself...

Out of curiosity - what was the order of magnitude of the "pork" spending compared to the cost of the "core" project?

[GaryC 7]

There was mention of "beach replenishment" in a post a while back. I'd hardly call that "pork", while it does have an obvious angle to preserve tourism $$$, the obvious reason for rebuilding/repairing beaches is to prevent or mitigate marine erosion at the coasts. Storms do a lot more damage if there's no beach to absorb the wave energy...

There were almost 900 additional requests for funds in this bill. Picking out the few that may be worthy isn't addressing the problem of the overall pork problem. Again I will state it, if this bill were passed without the pork Bush would have signed it. The pork is the reason it was vetoed.

Well that's what Bush said was the reason. As to what he actually considers to be "pork" spending is surely a different question entirely.

The example I cited about "beach replenishment" speaks to exactly that point - the article you posted claims references that project as an example of "pork", but without knowing much about the specifics of that project you can't really say with any certainty whether or not it amounts to some sort of frivolous pet project. The article doesn't really provide any specific detail.

In short - the choice is to either take the president and the writer of that article at their word - or you don't and you want more information to decide for yourself...

Out of curiosity - what was the order of magnitude of the "pork" spending compared to the cost of the "core" project?

This points to the core problem. What is appropriate for that bill and what isn't. Congress is famous for adding totally unrelated spending requests to much needed bills because they know that the bill will pass or a firestorm like this will result. That is how we got the "bridge to no where". It was attached to a bill that must pass. I like what McCain is saying on this subject. He says (whether he does it or not remains to be seen) that he will not sign any bill with earmarks attached. I agree with that 100%. If congress wants to spend our money then each spending request need to have a full airing and a vote for each. That alone will reduce the waste and corruption. I find it hard to believe that some here are defending the pork and damning any attempt to hold it back. Better late than never is what I say.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well its surely premature to condemn something out of hand without having the specific information to hand to reach your own conclusion.

Earmarks for frivolous projects are a problem - but there is an obvious reason why business is done that way. How long would business in Congress take if they had to have a vote on every single nickel and dime proposal out there?

Does this mean that we should not set aside any money for special projects? Who determines what does or does not have merit? Surely there is some sort of review process or cost benefit analysis...?

While I do recognise the problems presented by earmarks - I can also see that it provides politicians with an easy excused to shoot down any bill that they oppose for other reasons.

Given Bush's record, I'm not inclined to take him at his word without more information.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

Well its surely premature to condemn something out of hand without having the specific information to hand to reach your own conclusion.

Earmarks for frivolous projects are a problem - but there is an obvious reason why business is done that way. How long would business in Congress take if they had to have a vote on every single nickel and dime proposal out there?

Does this mean that we should not set aside any money for special projects? Who determines what does or does not have merit? Surely there is some sort of review process or cost benefit analysis...?

While I do recognise the problems presented by earmarks - I can also see that it provides politicians with an easy excused to shoot down any bill that they oppose for other reasons.

Given Bush's record, I'm not inclined to take him at his word without more information.

I oppose earmarks for anything. If someone proposes a bill and decides that some other related expense needs to be added then fine, add it and let the congress debate it. But adding a bridge to a military bill is dishonest. Pork is a way for a congress person to "pay back" or worse "to buy" votes from his constituents. It's one of the reasons why our budget is getting busted. If it slows down congress then so be it. When they are slowed down they are not spending money or passing laws. Most of what they do isn't needed anyway. It would force them to concentrate on the stuff that is really needed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well it *can* be, that doesn't mean that's how it is all of the time. Surely there should be (maybe there is?) some sort of review process for these programs, but throwing out the whole lot out of hand "just because" seems a little over the top.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well there is one thing that could happen if Congressional bills were prohibited from having special earmarks.

Issues would get debated without fear of realpolitik. I think this could be a good change as long as actually acted upon.

[GaryC 7]

Well it *can* be, that doesn't mean that's how it is all of the time. Surely there should be (maybe there is?) some sort of review process for these programs, but throwing out the whole lot out of hand "just because" seems a little over the top.

There isn't any review process that I am aware of. And I would be in favor of throwing the whole thing out. It is, after all, our money that they are spending. I want it to be debated by the people that we put in charge before it's spent.

[GaryC 7]

Well there is one thing that could happen if Congressional bills were prohibited from having special earmarks.

Issues would get debated without fear of realpolitik. I think this could be a good change as long as actually acted upon.

For once we agree. It's one of the bright spots with McCain. He says that he will not sign a bill with earmarks. I hope this isn't a campaign promise and he really means it.