How Does Your Representative Vote on Pork Barrel Spending?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Rep or Dem, I don't care -- we should all be against "pork-barrel" spending and practices that allow Congressmen to "hide" special projects and interest-group spending in larger bills.

MHO -- if your spending fetish can't withstand the scrutiny of public debate on the floor of your chamber, then it doesn't deserve money to begin with.

Now, if you want to know how your Representative feels about Pork and their "authority" to spend what is your money without full, fair disclosure, check this out.

Power to the Taxpayers!!!

JP

[RallyJon]

My congressman represents me and the others in his district. That's why we send him to DC. If he fights for benefits for us, is that pork?

What's the line between "pork-barrel spending" and "special interests" vs. doing your best to benefit your constituents? If a spending project brings money and jobs to the district, how is this a bad thing? Are you the judge? Is it all about the headlines, so if something sounds excessive in 40pt type then it must be pork?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Jon -

If you want to spend for your district, don't hide your "Bridge to Nowhere" in a defense bill, or in a bill for the clean-up of the Great Lakes.

Say, in your own bill, in your own words on the floor of the chamber, "I think it is essential for the FEDERAL Government (as opposed to state/local governments) to spend US taxpayer money on __________ for the more-or-less exclusive benefit of my constituents."

Then, let the chips, votes and ducats fall where they may.

JP

[legion]

My rep (Tim Johnson) voted on 7 out of 19. If I understand the chart correctly, that's not good.

[RallyJon]

That's not how it works, ever. Think about it: if there is a spending proposal that benefits only ONE member's constituents, why would the other 434 reps vote for it?

I'm surprised that you're using the typically liberal/democrat tactic of proposing a systemic change on it's own merits, where the real reason is to further a second agenda. It's a fact that representatives need a reliable mechanism to bring direct monetary benefits to their constituents. Some silly rule change that prevents piggy-backing spending onto another bill will never happen unless it includes a replacement mechanism that will work as effectively.

[Moneyguy1]

Jon

It works because it is the same model as interlocking corporate Boards of Directors...You vote for mine, I will vote for yours.

It is not Democrat, not Republican, just endemic.

You cannot attach labels to such activity and appear impartial. All are guilty. When it comes to personal interests, party affiliation takes a back seat.

[jluetjen]

Let's see, my senators are Ted Kennedy and John Kerry....

The Tip O'Niel (I mean Ted Williams) collapses and kills a motorist in spite of being the nations largest public works program -- ever.


I donno!

[Overpaid Slacker]

Jon - if you've read the link, it purports to demonstrate those Representatives that want these allocations, these hidden costs that piggyback other legistation, to be brought into the sunlight.

I'm not saying that our elected officials shouldn't represent their constituencies, at all. In fact, they should.

BUT if Representative X from State Y (not my state) tags a $50 million appropriation for, let's just say a highway and bridge to an island in the Great State of Y with a total population of 36 (to pick a ridiculous, but realistic example out of thin air) onto a $5 billion defense bill,
(1) there's no discussion of whether the FEDERAL government should be funding this unnecessary bridge;
(2) there's no way to pull that unnecessary appropriation out of the defense bill;
(3) the Pres has no line-item veto to kill it; and
(4) given all 3 above, the entire democratic process of debate and judging programs on their merits has been circumvented!

Now, I'm supposed to say "that's OK" because, every once in a while (about 1/435th of the time) I get some benefit at *everybody else's expense*?

Tell me you're not seriously saying that you don't care that some diametrically politically opposed ********* that is unanswerable to you can spend your money on an otherwise unnecessary pet project for the sole purpose of their re-election! Gaaaah! This pi$$es me off!

As I said earlier, if you have a pet project, bring it to the floor. Propose it, and argue it and make it stand (or fall) on its merits. If that means that fewer bridges get built to nowhere, or a statue to some pinhead isn't erected in the Bronx, or Banning, CA doesn't get a FEDERALLY-funded swimming pool, or Kentucky tourism doesn't get $1 million FEDERAL dollars to promote tourism, or hydroponic tomato production in Ohio doesn't get $180,000 of FEDERAL money, or $229,000 of FEDERAL money doesn't go to dairy education in Iowa... then so freaking be it.

If it means there's less spending (and therefore taxing...) of FEDERAL dollars, then so freaking be it. Please let it so freaking be.

And if Iowans really, really need $229,000 for dairy education, then Iowans can freaking pay for it themselves.

Otherwise, if I know I only have to, indirectly, pony up a fraction of the money needed to indulge any little fantasy I have... I'm just going to keep coming up with more and more indulgent fantasies that you and everybody else pays for.

I want a Carrera GT. No, make it 3 Carrera GTs. I've got my $1.03 ready, now you guys come up with the other $649,998.97 to pay for these cars that none of you will enjoy. Cool! Thanks! I'll be back next week with a demand for my own battleship! I'll even put a pool on it for the poor, poor residents of Banning, CA.

"Well, having your own battleship is ridiculous," you say? No you don't, because you never had a chance to. And, by the time you find out you've bought it, TOO LATE!!! I've got my battleship. You can pay for the fuel, too, as a matter of fact. That appropriation was tacked to a "Save the Wetlands" bill. Ain't I sneaky?

JP

[RallyJon]

I'm just saying this is like when Rodeo went on for a dozen pages whining about white house press conferences. To complain about a flawed system that serves very well the people who make the rules for that system is naive.

Is it a screwy system? Sure. But when the players involved have every reason to perpetuate it, what are you going to do?

Here's a good first step: why don't you figure out a different and maybe better or more fair method whereby a rep can deliver prizes to his constituents?

But make no mistake, if you propose something that removes the ability of reps to deliver pork, you won't succeed.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Start with term limits; but the efforts of Jeff Flake (and others) have to be supported. You can still bring home the pork, but there'll be less of it. The backroom deals and handwashing will still go on... Hell, maybe even another Bridge to Nowhere!!! But, just stop with the transparent trickeration, and hiding behind your 434 colleagues, whistling and looking up at the ceiling.

If Congressmen "know" that they've got to do what their constituents want, and their constituents tell them -- stop with the hidden pork, already... that stops the cycle right there.

Would I rather have Syracuse, NY get $500,000 for a shiny new memorial, or have everyone in the country not have to fund $500,000 -- that's easy.

Unfortunately, my Rep has a 0/14 score. He's an unremarkable seat-warmer in the Congress, like so many.

Campaign finance was reformed, by the same folks who stood to benefit the most by having it "unreformed." Do I agree with HOW it was reformed? Not necessarily.

[Seahawk]

It is all about the use and abuse of riders:

rider - Informal term for a nongermane amendment to a bill or an amendment to an appropriation bill that changes the permanent law governing a program funded by the bill.

They all do it.

[fastpat]

As far as I know there's only one congressman worth a damn on this issue, Ron Paul of Texas.

[bryanthompson]

why, did he try to set fire to the capital or something, pat?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
why, did he try to set fire to the capital or something, pat?

Ron Paul archive