Whose Fault Is Pork? "But the bill that Mr. Bush just signed contained at least 6,000 pork projects."

[dahunan]

Is this what America really deserves... :brokenheart: Are we all so cowardly and dull that we will put up with any thievery and lies our politicians dish out...

WHEN will WE stand up and FIGHT THE CORRUPTION

Whose Fault Is Pork?


Sunday, October 2, 2005; Page B06

THE HUGE EXPANSION of government overseen by the supposed party of small government has provoked a conservative backlash. The Heritage Foundation, which is usually respectful of Republican Party officeholders, recently noted that the party's ascendancy has coincided with an extraordinarily expensive Medicare prescription drug bill, the most costly farm bill in modern history, a 51 percent increase in spending on veterans and an increase in the annual number of pork projects from 6,000 in 2001 to 14,000 this year. Rank-and-file Republican House members are fed up with this unconservative record; on Wednesday they rebelled against Majority Leader Tom DeLay's scheme to have a big-spending ally keep his throne warm while he fights a criminal indictment. But the conservative revolt should logically be taken a step further. It should target President Bush.

When they are at their most timid, which means frequently, critics of government profligacy are content to blame "the system." They point to the pressures on members of Congress to grasp for favors for their districts. They invoke the old truth that special interests hire lobbyists to fight for subsidies while the public that pays for them goes unrepresented on K Street. But blaming systemic forces for political cronyism is like blaming crime on societal forces such as poverty. It's part of the explanation, but it isn't the whole one. Conservatives should know this better than anybody, since they believe most ardently in personal responsibility.


Who should be held responsible for runaway government spending? Mr. DeLay is certainly a good place to start. His governing principle was not to stand on principle but rather to rain taxpayers' money on every lobby that could return the favor with campaign contributions. But the biggest responsibility lies not with any member of the legislature but with Mr. Bush. Unlike senators and House members, the president represents the whole nation; he is supposed to defend the general interest against particularist claims. Moreover, he has the power to do so. If Congress serves up wasteful bills, the president can veto them.

Mr. Bush has been too cowardly to do that. He is the first president since John Quincy Adams to have served a full term without once exercising his veto, and his second term has so far been no different. This summer Mr. Bush promised to veto the transportation bill if it cost more than $256 billion. His threat brought the bill's size down quite a bit, but in the end he caved and signed a package that cost $295 billion. Why did he blink? Doesn't his administration pride itself on defending the power and prerogatives of the presidency? Mr. Bush's father had the courage to veto 44 bills in four years, and President Ronald Reagan once vetoed a transportation bill because it contained about 150 pork projects. But the bill that Mr. Bush just signed contained at least 6,000 pork projects.

The president's defenders plead that it's hard to veto bills when his own party controls Congress. But as the conservative commentator Bruce Bartlett points out, this defense is nonsense. President Franklin D. Roosevelt held office at a time of huge Democratic Party majorities in Congress, but that didn't stop him from vetoing a record 635 bills. Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter also coexisted with large Democratic majorities, yet Kennedy vetoed 21 bills during his short presidency, Johnson vetoed 30 and Carter vetoed 31.

The truth is that there is nothing to stop Mr. Bush from wielding his veto -- witness the fact that the administration threatened Friday to veto a defense bill if, among other potential offenses, it contained language outlawing cruel and inhuman treatment of foreign detainees. But while Mr. Bush cares fervently, and scandalously, about the imperative of keeping inhumane practices legal, he does not care as much about waste of taxpayers' money. This is why he has not made vigorous use of his veto to restrain the growth of pork. This is why an anti-spending backlash that focuses only on Mr. DeLay is missing its main target.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/10/01/AR2005100100944.html

 

[Strk]

I wish Reagan was alive to slap Dubya for all of this pork.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Strk
I wish Reagan was alive to slap Dubya for all of this pork.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Strk
I wish Reagan was alive to slap Dubya for all of this pork.

cough... star wars .. cough

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Is this what America really deserves... :brokenheart: Are we all so cowardly and dull that we will put up with any thievery and lies our politicians dish out...

You're just now figuring this out?!? I wouldn't say we're cowardly, but definitely dull, as well as apathetic and extremely short-sighted. Give me my gov't pork and freebies, and hopefully I'll die before the bill comes due!

 

[techs]

Hmmm. One interesting part that is very much deceptive. Bush has cut veterans benefits. The increase in Veterans spending is due to the war in Iraq which has increased the utilization of th now lower benefits increasing the total expenditures.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Strk
I wish Reagan was alive to slap Dubya for all of this pork.

WHAAAT? Dubya is always right, or you must be godless pinko teRRist J/K
It's a shame people don't rise up to fight money squandering in times when deficits are growing. If not RR, someone definitely should slap GWB for signing that bill, and Congress majority for voting for that thieving act.

 

[dullard]

Historically pork directly attributed to republicans is roughly double the cost of pork directly attributed to democrats. What else would you expect with (a) the same party in control of the house, senate, and presidency, (b) when that party is republican?

When it comes to limiting pork:
Mixture of power >> all democrat >> all republican.

 

[zendari]

The Democrats signed off on this pork bill, and they didn't comply with the Coburn amendment.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
The Democrats signed off on this pork bill, and they didn't comply with the Coburn amendment.

Ah, so it's the minority party of the Senate and the House's fault? Right....right!

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
The Democrats signed off on this pork bill, and they didn't comply with the Coburn amendment.

Ah, so it's the minority party of the Senate and the House's fault? Right....right!

Everyone knows where the real blame belongs--Clinton's pen!s! Damn thing has a mind of it's own!

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
The Democrats signed off on this pork bill, and they didn't comply with the Coburn amendment.

Ah, so it's the minority party of the Senate and the House's fault? Right....right!

I think his point (hopefully) was that both parties are guilty, and a good point it is. What are the Democrats actually going to do if they take back all or part of Congress in 2006? Do you think they'll really raise taxes after getting bounced out on tax increases in 1994. Not likely. And will they really cut spending? When has a Democrat ever done that? The simple fact is that both parties love to spend, the public won't hold them accountable for it, and the budget mess isn't likely to improve any time soon, no matter who's in charge.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Strk
I wish Reagan was alive to slap Dubya for all of this pork.

cough... star wars .. cough

I never said he was perfect, but compared to Dubya, well.....

 

[Zebo]

suprised by this? Unbelievable. Frankly they talk a good game about "small government" by anyone who has watched politcs knows Repubs are the tax and spend grandchampions starting with Ronald Reagan who a few idiots above seem to have reverance for while he qaudrupled the debt in his tenue, masterminded turning us from the worlds creditor to the world largest debitor nation.

The problem I have with them besides making my children slaves to the state is thier policies put money in the hands of the connected the rich and powerful while at least the democrats pretend to be for common man funding education, small business community etc. Bush gives his buddies at HAL a key to the treasury while cutting SBA by 50% since taking office and recently education..

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: zendari
The Democrats signed off on this pork bill, and they didn't comply with the Coburn amendment.

You advocate cutting education spending that Bush implemented, you blame the dems for something Bush enforced and supported...

Must be nice to think everything your guy does is right...just keep blaming the other side. How you can not condemn your president for something you obviously don't agree with is beyond me.

Nothing more than a partisan hack.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: dullard
Historically pork directly attributed to republicans is roughly double the cost of pork directly attributed to democrats. What else would you expect with (a) the same party in control of the house, senate, and presidency, (b) when that party is republican?

When it comes to limiting pork:
Mixture of power >> all democrat >> all republican.

The best according to The Cato Institute is a Democratic president and a Replican Congress. Republican presidents did ok with a Democratic Congress, but there other way around was much better.

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: zendari
The Democrats signed off on this pork bill, and they didn't comply with the Coburn amendment.

You advocate cutting education spending that Bush implemented, you blame the dems for something Bush enforced and supported...

Must be nice to think everything your guy does is right...just keep blaming the other side. How you can not condemn your president for something you obviously don't agree with is beyond me.

Nothing more than a partisan hack.

Yeah, I always find it amusing how you have some (not you, before this gets a slip-up because of the quoting system ) constantly go on about the "other side" but then have nothing to say on their own. You get responses on bad legislation like "would you rather it not be passed?" Or "I didn't see your party coming up with anything!"

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
The Democrats signed off on this pork bill, and they didn't comply with the Coburn amendment.

Ah, so it's the minority party of the Senate and the House's fault? Right....right!

I think his point (hopefully) was that both parties are guilty, and a good point it is. What are the Democrats actually going to do if they take back all or part of Congress in 2006? Do you think they'll really raise taxes after getting bounced out on tax increases in 1994. Not likely. And will they really cut spending? When has a Democrat ever done that? The simple fact is that both parties love to spend, the public won't hold them accountable for it, and the budget mess isn't likely to improve any time soon, no matter who's in charge.

Stunt answered it very well above.

 

[Pabster]

Ah, another "It's all Bush's fault!" thread.

It takes two parties to sign off on this garbage.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Ah, another "It's all Bush's fault!" thread.

It takes two parties to sign off on this garbage.

Has this Bush, a so called "Conservative", vetoed anything yet?

How about the "Conservative" led House?

The "Conservative" led Senate?

Any real "Conservatives" in DC?

Nope. Blame it on the Democrats, which I don't doubt would have spent on pork but that's what they're known for. The so called "Conservative" wrecking crew in DC has placed more pork than Democrats could ever hope to do. The Dems should really be proud.

Oh, and no, it actually only takes one party currently to sign off on pretty much anything. They also could trash it but they happily keep on piling on the pork.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Ah, another "It's all Bush's fault!" thread.

It takes two parties to sign off on this garbage.

As opposed to another "let's shift the blame so the guy in the office doesn't like so bad" post?

I think it has been well-established on the amount Congress sucks.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
The Democrats signed off on this pork bill, and they didn't comply with the Coburn amendment.

Ah, so it's the minority party of the Senate and the House's fault? Right....right!

I think his point (hopefully) was that both parties are guilty, and a good point it is. What are the Democrats actually going to do if they take back all or part of Congress in 2006? Do you think they'll really raise taxes after getting bounced out on tax increases in 1994. Not likely. And will they really cut spending? When has a Democrat ever done that? The simple fact is that both parties love to spend, the public won't hold them accountable for it, and the budget mess isn't likely to improve any time soon, no matter who's in charge.

Stunt answered it very well above.

Hardly. He just engaged in more partisan hacking. I've never given the GOP a 'free pass' on their rampant porking - frankly, the current crop is an embarrassment, but I've said before, the system is structurally flawed, in that there exists no mechanism, beyond a politican's will, and few have that, to encourage long-term fiscal solvency. Right now, both sides just try to bribe voters with public spending, and voters are lapping it up like sheep.

 

[Stunt]

Me a partisan hack?...heh
What is my party affiliation, Mursilis??

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Me a partisan hack?...heh
What is my party affiliation, Mursilis??

That one that Martin was in? (I don't know, that's the only name I remember from up north

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Stunt
Me a partisan hack?...heh
What is my party affiliation, Mursilis??

That one that Martin was in? (I don't know, that's the only name I remember from up north

Liberal Party?!...hell no!

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Stunt
Me a partisan hack?...heh
What is my party affiliation, Mursilis??

That one that Martin was in? (I don't know, that's the only name I remember from up north

Liberal Party?!...hell no!

Eh, I only know what other Canadian politician's name and I can't spell it

Cretian or whatever.