• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

2007 Pork report is out....

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
The surprise? The total pork actually dropped for the first time in nearly a decade!

I quote from the Citizens Against Govt Waste into:

According to the Chinese calendar, 2007 is the Year of the Pig. Fortunately for American taxpayers, it will be a smaller pig than usual. The 2007 Congressional Pig Book has not been this little since 1999, as only two of the 11 appropriations bills were enacted by Congress and the remaining nine were subject to a moratorium on earmarks.
There were still some disturbing items in the report however. There is still some of the SSDD attitude by the all-time pork champion of the world.....The "Gentleman" from Alaska.....Senator Ted Stevens!!!!!

While only two bills were enacted, the states of Alaska and Hawaii, which have been the top two states in pork per capita every year but one since 2000, were served more then their fair share of bacon by Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). In the defense appropriations bill alone, Alaska received $209,900,000, a 127 percent increase over the total of $92,425,000 in 2006.
Some of the items they listed as pork:

Nearly $1.2B for full funding of 20 F-22A jets. What makes this pork is that the GAO urged Congress to stop funding it because it was outdated and practically useless in the current national defense strategy.

Part of Steven's pork.....$4M for a rail connection between two towns with a combined population of ~2500. The problem is that there is already a direct road between the two towns that are a staggering 82.1 miles apart.

It isn't referenced on the link above....but the pork leader for the last year? Charlie Rangold. According to the news (Headline News piece), he even got almost $2m for a political center with his name on it!
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,295
10,093
136
The F-22 is "useless" until another conventional conflict breaks out, at which point you can't exactly run out to the supermarket and buy the world's most advanced stealth air-superiority fighter.

Part of the reason the F-35 is quite a bit cheaper per plane is they applied the R&D from the F-22 and are spreading costs out to a much larger number of production aircraft. It also isn't nearly in the same performance envelope as the F-22.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Nearly $1.2B for full funding of 20 F-22A jets. What makes this pork is that the GAO urged Congress to stop funding it because it was outdated and practically useless in the current national defense strategy.
One can not fire up such a production line and start cranking out planes at a later date within a few weeks or so. - Look at what we needed back in WWII and then the planes were much simpler and the opponent less sophisticated.

The F-35 is not flying and there is talk of cutting it back or delays due to problems.

The F15/16 will need a replacement some time (sorry EagleKeeper:brokenheart:) and with 10-15 years lead time, some frontline weapon will be needed.

UAVs are not going to be acceptable to fill that gap - they are a force multiplier, not a force filler.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,289
0
0
I'm not discounting the impact of $25 bil a year in pork ... but c'mon, doods!

We spend that much in 2 months in Iraq. Our Federal Debt will exceed $600 bil this fiscal year. Interest alone on the Federal debt will be $470 bil this year!
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: K1052
The F-22 is "useless" until another conventional conflict breaks out, at which point you can't exactly run out to the supermarket and buy the world's most advanced stealth air-superiority fighter.

Part of the reason the F-35 is quite a bit cheaper per plane is they applied the R&D from the F-22 and are spreading costs out to a much larger number of production aircraft. It also isn't nearly in the same performance envelope as the F-22.
well this was done buy accountants after all.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,357
5,359
126
if i were an oil company exec, next time congress called me in and tried to flame me i'd bring a copy of this report and flame them back.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
if i were an oil company exec, next time congress called me in and tried to flame me i'd bring a copy of this report and flame them back.
If the oil execs really wanted to make a fool of the fools in congress. All they need to do is bring a chart showing oil company profts for the past 30 years vs federal taxes collected from gasoline. It will show who is the real benefactor from oil.
 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
24
81
Military planes are not pork.

USAPATRIOT, WELFARE, SS, DHS, FBI, NCLB, Stimulus Package, CIA operations outside of the USA, that's pork. Pork is taking tax money and spending on shit we don't need, or shit that is so federally mismanaged that it's doesn't work and provides no value. Wait sorry, that makes the whole government pork, hmmmm...
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,564
1
0
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Military planes are not pork.

USAPATRIOT, WELFARE, SS, DHS, FBI, NCLB, Stimulus Package, CIA operations outside of the USA, that's pork. Pork is taking tax money and spending on shit we don't need, or shit that is so federally mismanaged that it's doesn't work and provides no value. Wait sorry, that makes the whole government pork, hmmmm...
?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Military planes are not pork.

USAPATRIOT, WELFARE, SS, DHS, FBI, NCLB, Stimulus Package, CIA operations outside of the USA, that's pork. Pork is taking tax money and spending on shit we don't need, or shit that is so federally mismanaged that it's doesn't work and provides no value. Wait sorry, that makes the whole government pork, hmmmm...
?
Didnt you know, the CIA is only supposed to spy on Americans :D

 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
24
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
...CIA operations outside of the USA, that's pork...
:confused: ?wtf? :confused:
The CIA has no madate, no authority, and no business operating outside of the USA. We try people for treason for spying on us, yet send spies to spy on everyone else. Hypocracy! The USA has no need for secret police. Having such an entity as the CIA, especially operating outside of the borders, is antithetical to the values of this republic.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
...CIA operations outside of the USA, that's pork...
:confused: ?wtf? :confused:
The CIA has no madate, no authority, and no business operating outside of the USA. We try people for treason for spying on us, yet send spies to spy on everyone else. Hypocracy! The USA has no need for secret police. Having such an entity as the CIA, especially operating outside of the borders, is antithetical to the values of this republic.
Information is a key weapon.

There are countries that attempt to obtain our knowledge in order to defeat us.

Why should we not attempt to do the same.

Treason is from citizens/residents within the country, not from without.

 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,295
10,093
136
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
...CIA operations outside of the USA, that's pork...
:confused: ?wtf? :confused:
The CIA has no madate, no authority, and no business operating outside of the USA. We try people for treason for spying on us, yet send spies to spy on everyone else. Hypocracy! The USA has no need for secret police. Having such an entity as the CIA, especially operating outside of the borders, is antithetical to the values of this republic.
Two acts of Congress and a National Security Directive doesn't constitute a mandate and authority?

Not having an organized foreign intelligence service put us at a distinct disadvantage for a long time as pretty much every other nation on the planet had one. Only when the shit really hit the fan in WWII did we figure that out and create the OSS. Besides, the CIA is explicitly limited from operating inside the US (that's FBI and NSA territory).
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,760
11
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
While only two bills were enacted, the states of Alaska and Hawaii, which have been the top two states in pork per capita every year but one since 2000, were served more then their fair share of bacon by Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). In the defense appropriations bill alone, Alaska received $209,900,000, a 127 percent increase over the total of $92,425,000 in 2006.
And people complain there's no bipartisanship in Congress - when it comes to wasting money, both parties share that common goal. Anyone who thinks differently is just kidding themselves.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Military planes are not pork.

USAPATRIOT, WELFARE, SS, DHS, FBI, NCLB, Stimulus Package, CIA operations outside of the USA, that's pork. Pork is taking tax money and spending on shit we don't need, or shit that is so federally mismanaged that it's doesn't work and provides no value. Wait sorry, that makes the whole government pork, hmmmm...
Well, then, let's just make 100,000 warplanes and not have any cost controls, after all, they're never pork. Right?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
...CIA operations outside of the USA, that's pork...
:confused: ?wtf? :confused:
The CIA has no madate, no authority, and no business operating outside of the USA. We try people for treason for spying on us, yet send spies to spy on everyone else. Hypocracy! The USA has no need for secret police. Having such an entity as the CIA, especially operating outside of the borders, is antithetical to the values of this republic.
Actually, the CIA has *exactly* a mandate to operate outside - and only outside - the USA.

The more pertinent question may be whether it should be limited to its original charter of collecting information for policymakers, versus its expanded 'operations' functions.

I'm all in favor of the actions such as the CIA's role in overthrowing Allende, or their near-certain role in the coup against Chavez, being ended.
 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
24
81
I'm retarded tody. I meant FBI outside of the USA, and CIA as a police force as opposed to an intelligence gathering outfit, but said it the other way around. Lexdysia much, me?

I also forgot the biggest piece of pork, the conflict in Iraq.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,917
173
106
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
-snip-
We try people for treason for spying on us, yet send spies to spy on everyone else. Hypocracy!
Fundamental confusion here. Treason is only when it's a US citizen spying on us.

When we catch foreignors spying on us, they are usually deported.

Then that country will usually deport one of our State Dept people as a spy in retaliation.

During the Cold War we often held them, and then swapped them for one of ours held by the USSR.

I watched several swaps in Berlin (the usual place for exchange) when I lived there.

Fern
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
If the oil execs really wanted to make a fool of the fools in congress. All they need to do is bring a chart showing oil company profts for the past 30 years vs federal taxes collected from gasoline. It will show who is the real benefactor from oil.
Oh, so record profits for the oil guys is less questionable than taxation?

Pork may not be ideal, but not all taxation is spent on pork. And, some pork is beneficial, even though it has the side-effect of helping the career of the politician who gets it. Pork is money that goes to a politician's district to help their career. Whether it's a wise use of the money or not depends on the specific pork. The assumption is that it's bad because it appears to be a conflict of interest. However, people want their politicians to "do something for them". Greed isn't limited.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
Well, all profit is hypocrisy, isn't it? After all, if a person is only interested in helping society, he/she would do a non-profit.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,357
5,359
126
there is nothing in the rules regulating non-profits that says you can't get rich running one.



Originally posted by: superstition
Oh, so record profits for the oil guys is less questionable than taxation?
record profits for a private entity that is responsible firstly (and only, theoretically) to its shareholders are less questionable than congressional spending priorities.

now, congressional spending priorities are the supposed reason for these witch hunts. and that naturally includes whatever tax breaks congress wants to give or take away from oil companies.

i'm just saying that i'd flame congress back for misguided policies and pork that cost average americans more money than the oil companies' profits.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
There's nothing stopping a person running a non-profit from becoming rich
Which is not coincidental.

Capitalism is supposed to be good on the basis that competition for resources (greed) will cause people to invent/innovate and therefore improve quality of life for everyone. So, in order to make even a "non-profit" worthwhile for its participants, profit is injected.

record profits for a private entity that is responsible firstly (and only, theoretically) to its shareholders are less questionable than congressional spending priorities.
How does only being responsible for shareholders doing more good and therefore is less questionable? I suppose those who argue that market competition causes greater innovation than taxation would see things this way. However, greater stratification is often a recipe for recession/depression.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS