• 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....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
686
0
0
For what it's worth, I just saw this:

New Pig Book says Hillary Clinton's tops in pork spending, Barack Obama's 2nd, but John McCain had none!

The nonpartisan taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste is out with its newest Pig Book, an overwhelming detailing of all 11,610 pork barrel projects inserted in the current fiscal year's appropriations bills by individual members of Congress.

These semi-secret spending measures cost taxpayers New York Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on the phone no doubt arranging another legislative earmark that makes her the biggest pork barrel spender of the remaining White House candidates, according to the newly released Pig Bookan extra $17.2 billion this fiscal year alone. This is the first year legislators have had to attach their names to these measures.

That's B for billion dollar$. In extra spending. That typically didn't go through the usual legislative committee screening. A huge increase over the previous year.

And guess which one of the surviving presidential candidates likes pork the most? And the least?

According to the Pig Book ("The Book Washington Does Not Want You to Read"), New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is our new grand national oinker among presidential contenders for most pork barrel spending. She inserted a whopping 281 individual spending projects into bills for the benefit of New York interests at the cost of taxpayers everywhere.

That totals $296.2 million.

The new national hero, on the other hand, for not inserting one penny of pork barrel spending is the Republican Party's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. As a longtime staunch opponent of such earmarks, McCain may be expected to raise the subject of such special spending if Clinton becomes his Democratic opponent in the fall's general election.

He may also bring it up if his opponent is Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who may be a freshman senator but still isn't shy about inserting special earmarks into legislation cataloged by the taxpayer group's annual report. He accounted for 53 special earmarks, totaling almost $97.4 million.

This includes about $402,000 for a juvenile delinquency program at the Shedd Aquarium and $383,000 for another ethanol research plant.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who still technically is in the GOP race, has campaigned against large government seeping into the lives of American citizens. However, according to the Pig Book, that didn't keep him from proposing eight pork-spending bills totaling $22 million, including nearly $4 million to alter a Galveston bridge.

-- Andrew Malcolm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.../2008/04/pig-book.html
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,741
13,864
136
That's right- squeal about $25B, even though it's less than 1% of the budget. nevermind the $600B going to the military, god knows how much to cover debt maintenance and faux security.

Yeh, sure, there's lots of waste in the federal budget, but pointing to the little bits of it is duh-versionary, at best. Getting out of Iraq, for example, would save 5X the money...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
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.
:confused: I don't even know where to begin in describing your ignorance... wow.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Just an FYI...

Presidential Candidate Pork
--------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton: $296.2 million
Barack Obama: $97.4 million
John McCain: $0

I think we're very likely to hear about these numbers again between now and November... McCain has some serious bragging rights!

 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,604
17
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.
Meanwhile, the area including Washington DC, New York City, Philadelphia, Allentown, Trenton, and maybe Pittsburgh, could use a high-speed rail system. Sure it'd be way more that $4M, but it would be used by millions of people.

 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: bbdub333
For what it's worth, I just saw this:

New Pig Book says Hillary Clinton's tops in pork spending, Barack Obama's 2nd, but John McCain had none!

The nonpartisan taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste is out with its newest Pig Book, an overwhelming detailing of all 11,610 pork barrel projects inserted in the current fiscal year's appropriations bills by individual members of Congress.

These semi-secret spending measures cost taxpayers New York Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on the phone no doubt arranging another legislative earmark that makes her the biggest pork barrel spender of the remaining White House candidates, according to the newly released Pig Bookan extra $17.2 billion this fiscal year alone. This is the first year legislators have had to attach their names to these measures.

That's B for billion dollar$. In extra spending. That typically didn't go through the usual legislative committee screening. A huge increase over the previous year.

And guess which one of the surviving presidential candidates likes pork the most? And the least?

According to the Pig Book ("The Book Washington Does Not Want You to Read"), New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is our new grand national oinker among presidential contenders for most pork barrel spending. She inserted a whopping 281 individual spending projects into bills for the benefit of New York interests at the cost of taxpayers everywhere.

That totals $296.2 million.

The new national hero, on the other hand, for not inserting one penny of pork barrel spending is the Republican Party's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. As a longtime staunch opponent of such earmarks, McCain may be expected to raise the subject of such special spending if Clinton becomes his Democratic opponent in the fall's general election.

He may also bring it up if his opponent is Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who may be a freshman senator but still isn't shy about inserting special earmarks into legislation cataloged by the taxpayer group's annual report. He accounted for 53 special earmarks, totaling almost $97.4 million.

This includes about $402,000 for a juvenile delinquency program at the Shedd Aquarium and $383,000 for another ethanol research plant.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who still technically is in the GOP race, has campaigned against large government seeping into the lives of American citizens. However, according to the Pig Book, that didn't keep him from proposing eight pork-spending bills totaling $22 million, including nearly $4 million to alter a Galveston bridge.

-- Andrew Malcolm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.../2008/04/pig-book.html
I found the Ron Paul part funny.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,083
15
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
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.
Shizzle those are two good ones ZING!!!!!!!!

 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Just an FYI...

Presidential Candidate Pork
--------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton: $296.2 million
Barack Obama: $97.4 million
John McCain: $0

I think we're very likely to hear about these numbers again between now and November... McCain has some serious bragging rights!
Just curious, where'd you get these numbers?
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Just an FYI...

Presidential Candidate Pork
--------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton: $296.2 million
Barack Obama: $97.4 million
John McCain: $0

I think we're very likely to hear about these numbers again between now and November... McCain has some serious bragging rights!
And with the current mindset of how much can you give me among the fanatic portion of the voting group, looks like McCain is failing behind.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,607
3
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Just an FYI...

Presidential Candidate Pork
--------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton: $296.2 million
Barack Obama: $97.4 million
John McCain: $0

I think we're very likely to hear about these numbers again between now and November... McCain has some serious bragging rights!
No, it just goes to show he'll bend over and let everyone around him bend him over the pole. If its there spend it. If you walk away from it as a Senator then you harmed your own constituency.

 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,319
10,137
136
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.
Meanwhile, the area including Washington DC, New York City, Philadelphia, Allentown, Trenton, and maybe Pittsburgh, could use a high-speed rail system. Sure it'd be way more that $4M, but it would be used by millions of people.
*cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,819
2,242
126
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.
Meanwhile, the area including Washington DC, New York City, Philadelphia, Allentown, Trenton, and maybe Pittsburgh, could use a high-speed rail system. Sure it'd be way more that $4M, but it would be used by millions of people.
*cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
Um... The Acela Express is crap. It can only run at it's maximum speed for a 20 mile stretch through Rhode Island. The rest of the track is too curved or falling apart to support the high speeds it is capable of.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
That's right- squeal about $25B, even though it's less than 1% of the budget. nevermind the $600B going to the military, god knows how much to cover debt maintenance and faux security.

Yeh, sure, there's lots of waste in the federal budget, but pointing to the little bits of it is duh-versionary, at best. Getting out of Iraq, for example, would save 5X the money...
600 billion to the military to defend our country, one of the legal uses of our public money our congress appropriates.

 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,319
10,137
136
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.
Meanwhile, the area including Washington DC, New York City, Philadelphia, Allentown, Trenton, and maybe Pittsburgh, could use a high-speed rail system. Sure it'd be way more that $4M, but it would be used by millions of people.
*cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
Um... The Acela Express is crap. It can only run at it's maximum speed for a 20 mile stretch through Rhode Island. The rest of the track is too curved or falling apart to support the high speeds it is capable of.
The biggest problem is of course on the New Haven line where they have track design and electrical issues which they are working to remedy, but it takes time and money. You can still cover most of those distances significantly faster on the Acela door to door than you ever can using an air shuttle into the major airports. The strong ridership on the service speaks for itself.

It isn't ideal (yet) but as the only area in the entire US with anything resembling high speed service I wouldn't call it "crap". $4 million is basically nothing when you are talking about high speed rail (or even commuter/metro rail for that matter).
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.
Meanwhile, the area including Washington DC, New York City, Philadelphia, Allentown, Trenton, and maybe Pittsburgh, could use a high-speed rail system. Sure it'd be way more that $4M, but it would be used by millions of people.
*cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
Um... The Acela Express is crap. It can only run at it's maximum speed for a 20 mile stretch through Rhode Island. The rest of the track is too curved or falling apart to support the high speeds it is capable of.
The entire NE corridor can not sustain high speed rail. either the tracks or the bed are flawed
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,319
10,137
136
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.
Meanwhile, the area including Washington DC, New York City, Philadelphia, Allentown, Trenton, and maybe Pittsburgh, could use a high-speed rail system. Sure it'd be way more that $4M, but it would be used by millions of people.
*cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
Um... The Acela Express is crap. It can only run at it's maximum speed for a 20 mile stretch through Rhode Island. The rest of the track is too curved or falling apart to support the high speeds it is capable of.
The entire NE corridor can not sustain high speed rail. either the tracks or the bed are flawed
Again it depends what portion of the route you are talking about since it passes though on lines owned by several different entities and what you define as high speed. Relative to other regional (rail/road/air) service it does pretty well on a time and cost basis.

Amtrak was saying that to upgrade the entire run to the designed 150mph top speed of the trainsets would cost upwards of $10B. The idea is now to focus on the slowest segments first to raise average speeds more quickly. A european style system like the TGV/Eurostar (200-300mph) would need an entirely new system that is totally grade separated and isolated from existing rail networks.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,289
0
0
Straight from The Doiuble-Talk Express

?And I?m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state and I guarantee you I?ll veto those bills. I?ll ask for the line item veto and I?ll veto them and I?ll make the authors of them famous.? - John McCain
I guess Johnny Mac forgot about the $10 million to the University of Arizona to launch an academic center honoring the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the FY 2007 Budget.

Once again, while the efforts are noble, this whole ""pork"" debate is a joke. $25 bil a year is NOTHING in the scope of the Federal budget disaster of the last 8 years.

What's even a bigger joke is holding McCain up as a 'fiscal conservative' when his campaign is run by lobbyists and special interests.

I like McCain. I liked him alot more in 2000. What is subjective here is whether the 'pork' is necessary, or cost effective for the public 'good' in consideration to the overall Federal budget.

Give each Senator $50 million in discretionary funds. Give each Senator a proportionate share (based on state population) of a $5 billion dollar fund and let them decide how it should be spent 'locally'.

Give each Representative $10 million that can be spent anyway they want in their district.

There. Less than $15 billion in 'targeted' pork.

Now fix the damn Federal Budget.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
From Boston to NYC, the system can not support any speeds that exceed the driving limit with any length of time/distance.

Below NYC, the track system is in slightly better shape.

However, as you stated, the system needs to be able to compete with air to get people off the roads.

The slowest areas are the ones that will be the most $$ - replace the bed & rails or lay new track. Also, the routes need to not stop in every podunk town along the way that has a train station.

Pick stops every 50-100 miles apart for the high speed and then have low/medium speed feed those stations.

DC->Balt->Union City->NYC->New Haven->Providence->Bos

That covers all the major cities on the NE corridor within 25 miles.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Give each Senator $50 million in discretionary funds. Give each Senator a proportionate share (based on state population) of a $5 billion dollar fund and let them decide how it should be spent 'locally'.

Give each Representative $10 million that can be spent anyway they want in their district.

There. Less than $15 billion in 'targeted' pork.

Now fix the damn Federal Budget.
I actually like this plan. My only input to it would be to make sure that there is an iron-clad paper trail to ensure that the money isn't going to family members, etc.

It would eliminate a lot of hassle with other bills that have the riders attached to them and we would get a clearer picture as to whether a person was voting for/against a bill based on the actual content instead of giving them an easy "I would have voted for it if not for the pork attached" excuse that is used so much today.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,319
10,137
136
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
From Boston to NYC, the system can not support any speeds that exceed the driving limit with any length of time/distance.

Below NYC, the track system is in slightly better shape.

However, as you stated, the system needs to be able to compete with air to get people off the roads.

The slowest areas are the ones that will be the most $$ - replace the bed & rails or lay new track. Also, the routes need to not stop in every podunk town along the way that has a train station.

Pick stops every 50-100 miles apart for the high speed and then have low/medium speed feed those stations.

DC->Balt->Union City->NYC->New Haven->Providence->Bos

That covers all the major cities on the NE corridor within 25 miles.
Amtrak has been introducing more limited stop service on Acela Express to that end and I agree that they need more. I do believe that in the last round of funding in 2007 substantial capital funding was included (some of which was destined for route upgrades).
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,359
5,364
126
Originally posted by: superstition

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.
who said anything about doing more good? the government is responsible to the people. corps are responsible to their shareholders. the government has the power and force of law behind it. corps have, well, not much in comparison. that is why government expenditures and policies should be regularly and thoroughly vetted in public.

'greater stratification' doesn't factor into it. nothing is stopping me from buying shares of exxon, bp, shell, whoever, and getting myself some part of their profits, as well as shareholder rights.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
I dont see why the FBI and CIA are seperate entities. Doesnt the CIA also do things like track fake currency coming into the USA from foreign sources. This is an example of how the CIA and the FBI really need to work together. Trying to artificially seperate them is counter-productive.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Straight from The Doiuble-Talk Express

?And I?m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state and I guarantee you I?ll veto those bills. I?ll ask for the line item veto and I?ll veto them and I?ll make the authors of them famous.? - John McCain
I guess Johnny Mac forgot about the $10 million to the University of Arizona to launch an academic center honoring the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the FY 2007 Budget.

Once again, while the efforts are noble, this whole ""pork"" debate is a joke. $25 bil a year is NOTHING in the scope of the Federal budget disaster of the last 8 years.

What's even a bigger joke is holding McCain up as a 'fiscal conservative' when his campaign is run by lobbyists and special interests.

I like McCain. I liked him alot more in 2000. What is subjective here is whether the 'pork' is necessary, or cost effective for the public 'good' in consideration to the overall Federal budget.

Give each Senator $50 million in discretionary funds. Give each Senator a proportionate share (based on state population) of a $5 billion dollar fund and let them decide how it should be spent 'locally'.

Give each Representative $10 million that can be spent anyway they want in their district.

There. Less than $15 billion in 'targeted' pork.

Now fix the damn Federal Budget.
I might agree to a plan like that. But, do you really expect 100 supposedly "equal" Senators to agree to 100 "equal" pots of money?!

yeah right!

If they ever do manage something like that, I hope that every penny spent is also listed online for all the world to see...
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
who said anything about doing more good?
I did.
the government is responsible to the people. corps are responsible to their shareholders.
But, as I've noted, capitalism is supposed to do good. It's supposed to be a system that causes innovation/invention to improve quality of life for everyone via competition.
the government has the power and force of law behind it. corps have, well, not much in comparison. that is why government expenditures and policies should be regularly and thoroughly vetted in public.
Corporations are covered by law just as much.
'greater stratification' doesn't factor into it. nothing is stopping me from buying shares of exxon, bp, shell, whoever, and getting myself some part of their profits, as well as shareholder rights.
Greater stratification does factor. If capitalism eats itself (killing competition and hoarding resources via increasing stratification) then everyone loses. That is why the record profits of the oil companies is under scrutiny.


 

ASK THE COMMUNITY