Unfortunately, an Unconstitutional Proposal

Lamentably, Representative Savage's bill will most likely be challenged by the Supreme Court and deemed unconstitutional as it is now written. His proposal would allow high school students to sit on local Boards of Education as voting members. Although I agree that it is important to give students a say in how their school is run, I believe that this is the purpose of Student Governments within schools. Also, Amendment 26 of the US Constitution sets the legal voting age at 18, and most high school students are not 18 years old. The only way for the Honorable Representative's bill to be deemed constitutional and passed would be to add a stipulation that only students who are age 18 could sit on a local board. Although some people would say that this scenario would be better than no representation at all, I believe that such a limitation would defeat the purpose of Mr. Savage's bill. If only seniors are allowed to sit on the Board, then the needs and ideas of only one-fourth of the actual student body will be represented. This could instill tension between the senior class and younger classes, creating an environment less conducive to effective education than before. I like the Representative's idea, but unfortunately it is not practical without another amendment to the Constitution regarding the legal voting age.

There are also a few other problems with the Representative's proposal. A decision would have to be made regarding the number of students who could sit on the Board of Education in a given town. Would it be proportional to the number of elected members? Would the bill ensure that the elected members retain the majority, and thus the ability to override the less experienced student members? And, what about towns with multiple high schools? How would the available student seats be divided among the multiple schools? With all due respect, I think that Mr. Savage has stumbled upon an issue that is much more complicated that he realizes. Even if the bill were considered constitutional as it now reads, I would need to see a more defined structure and clearer plans for resolving possible issues that could arise before I could put my name to it.

Additional Board memmbers

Representative Savidge's proposal was approved by the HOR on 3/20/09. It may be cahallenged in the US Supreme Court , however. Explain why this will most likely occur.

Full of P**k

(Chapter 27)

Pork spending has been an ongoing issue in the United States government. Constantly, thousands of earmarks are weaved into bills trying to be passed. In 1997, Clinton “signed the first balanced-budget bill in two decades.” This bill was littered with billions of dollars worth of pork that was funded by U.S. taxes. Twenty-one billion dollars worth of taxes funded pork “emergency” spending. These emergencies included “ $ 3.35 billion to tackle the Y2K computer problem, $2.4 billion for antiterrorism activities, $6.8 billion to improve military readiness, and $5.9 billion in additional aid to farmers.” Now, some of these earmarks may seem important, but you must keep in mind that they were simply thrown into the bill without group discussion. We are talking billions of dollars of OUR taxes that are funding projects we didn’t vote on. Not to mention, the billions of dollars spent on pork issues that don’t even affect people in CT (discussed in the other blog entries). Earmarks are not to be taken lightly. They are a repulsive representation of how sneaky our government can be. Don’t let your tax dollars go to the funding of projects you are not even aware about. If you truly want to find out where all of your tax dollars are going to, sift through Obama’s 1400 page stimulus plan. (1)

Obama’s plan directly relates to Clinton’s signing of the balanced-budget bill because they are both FULL OF PORK! Although prior to Obama’s presidency he promised to only sign bills that are earmark-free, he has failed by approving the thousands of earmarks in his 2009 stimulus plan. It is comforting to know that your tax dollars are going towards the “$1.7 million fund for pig odor research in Iowa.” McCain’s response to this was bold but truthful, “So much for the promise of change, Mr. President. So much for the promise of change.” (2)

(Chapter 28)

On the opposite side of the coin, Jonathan Cohn discusses how pork barrel spending can attribute to society. Pork passed through bills is the only that the small town people can have their voice put into action. Without earmarks, the needs of lesser important people and issues would never be passed. If you look at the situation positively, with pork spending someone or some group of people are being helped. It may not be you, but sooner or later it could be.  At a press conference Shatz put it, “No matter how you slice it, pork is always on the menu in the halls of Congress.” (1) Essentially, almost every president has promised to eliminate pork spending but the reality is it will always be there. Pork spending opens up job opportunities and supports the interest of the individual. Without it, the common good of the people may not be expressed. Its simply too hard to pass thousands of individual bills on their own. In closure, it is important to recognize that one day you could be in the position where your rights are a piece of pork. 

 

 Sources:

(1) David T. Canon, John J. Coleman, Kenneth R. Mayer, ed., The Enduring Debate, 4th ed. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006), 161-173.

(2) http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/analysis-obama-mccain-relationship-deteriorates-2009-03-03.html

It All Comes Back to Strength of Government

The pork-barrel debacle described in Chapters 27 and 28 of The Enduring Debate is really just one small facet of a much larger debate that has been argued ever since the Constitutional Convention sat down to create a new American government. It is the debate between a stronger central government and a weaker one, the difference between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and, according to Jonathan Cohn, the source of the earmark dispute. He claims that the add-ons are necessary and serve a positive purpose: they allow the state senators and representatives to check the federal government's power by giving them a way to procure funds for their districts without the approval of the President. This debate continues today in the argument over the recently passed Bailout Bill.

In Chapter 27, Sean Page argues that most earmarks range from "the trivial...to the ludicrous," (1) and should be removed from the bailout bill. The spending bill includes several items like this, including "$238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii" and "nearly $1.8 million for pig odor research in Iowa". (2) Paige would argue that these wasteful amendments do not belong in the bill and should not have been passed by Congress.

In Chapter 28, Jonathan Cohn makes the point that earmarks are a vital part of the legislative process and should not be criticized. Politics is a seriese of tadeoffs, and if you want to get an important bill passed, you have to be willing to accept the sausage filler that comes with it. He would argue that the included "$950,000 for a convention center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina" and "$143,000 for a natural history museum in Las Vegas" (2) were necessary projects added in order to gain the required number of votes for the bill. Also, Cohn would point out that these projects are serving important roles in their communities by providing jobs and helping to stimulate the economy, which after all, is the whole point of the bill.

1. The Enduring Debate (Fourth Edition)

2. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/05/obama.pork/index.html?iref=newssearch

Abound Pork on the Stimulus Package

In chapter 27, the usage of Pork has shifted our economy in ways of it being too much. The intention of using Pork is to abet the troubled economy for the common good. In the fall of 1997, President Clinton passed a bill with the "madness of budget" which consisted several earmarks. However Congress "rushed to cram a year's worth of budget writing into the waning weeks before the midterm elections." This included several random sampling of pork barrel projects unnecessary at the time which was not for the better of the economy. In the stimulus package today, there also are random sampling of pork barrel projects found in the package. For example, "there is a $200,000 allocated to the task of tattoo removal as Representative Howard Berman of California wanted." Another would be "$2 million for swine odor and manure for Tom Harkin." Money isn't spent for the better of the economy; we are in an emergency state to provide for the common good. It doesn't end there, "$8 billion for high-speed rail projects", and serveral others for human services, tax and mediciad provisions. The abuse of pork barrel projects has gone too far in the stimulus package which is leading our ecomony in a harder setting to get out of recession.

In chapter 28, it outlines on how the usuage of pork is necessary if bills are wanting to be passed, on how the usuage of pork can not be disregarded. With the usage of pork, it is also a way the senators/house can do their jobs by putting an earmark on the stimulus package. Not only that but also keep in touch with districts and make them brag about all the things wanted in a district to pass a bill. The new majority used earmarks as a means of "protecting vulerable incumbents by showing their ability to secure funds for local projects." Another example is that the earmarks are the things which bring new jobs into the large amount of people unemployeed these days. "By securing funding for a project that brings new jobs to a depressed community or for much needed infrastructure repairs, a legislator can show what they can do for their community." Earmark are needed in my cases; it was a way for Congress to secure funds for important projects that they may have better knowledge than others outside of a district. It's a way a accommodate the people in that particular district for the benefit of Congress members and for the benefit of the people living in the district. It may hinder the ecomony, by spending it on projects unnecessary compared to the economic crisis today, but without it, there would be no consent of the people to run the government.

Sources:

1. http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/earmarksFAQ/
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html
3. http://www.8000credit.org/150/
4. The Enduring Debate Classic and Contemporary Readings in American Politics, Fourth Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. ch 27-28

Pork Debate 2009

Chapter 27
Our economy is utter and complete disarray, while ‘earmarks’ overshadow a stimulus package that was supposed to fix our crumbling economy. This bill is very analogous and congruent with the bill President Clinton passed in 1997 despite a problem with the amount of earmarks in the proposal. The bill in 1997 was loaded with pork and to the opinion of the population severely lacked other meats. The bill included “$37.5 million for a ferry and docking facilities at King Cove, Alaska; $2 million for the National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture in West Virginia (“The Seafood capital of Appalachia!” one wag said); $1.4 million for the Jimmy Carter National Historical Site…” (1) These ‘earmarks’ do not help a struggling economy in any way shape or form; they only are detrimental to the true goals of the bill. The stimulus package that President Obama has labeled “Imperfect” is teeming with pet projects. Some outlandish pieces of pork in the plan are include “$951,500 for a "sustainable Las Vegas" study, $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Honolulu, $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyo., and $24,000 for a program in Pennsylvania to promote sexual abstinence.” (2). These pet projects detract from the assistance that this stimulus package gives to the current calamitous state of our economy.

Chapter 28
In the grand scheme of things the senators whom place pork within bills are actually doing their jobs. We elect representatives to ‘represent’ our district/community/state in congress. As the book states “We elect people to Congress to not only see to the nation’s defense and keep the currency sound but also to bring home some pork…” (1) The Senators who place earmarks are doing what we elected them to do; to make sure we have a say in the nation, but also to look after our community and institute projects that will improve upon our community. Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat stated, "It isn't as if the money won't be spent. Oh, it will be spent. But it may not be spent as effectively or for projects that are as valuable." (2) Which in essence is saying that the money will be spent no matter what, so it is in the best interest of the state to receive some projects from the pot of money. Yes many projects are very weak and have no right being instituted, however, many projects are highly beneficial and can really help a state/city/town/community. There is major speculation about the “$1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years” (3) The project also creates jobs for a significant amount of people, which is massively important concerning the high unemployment currently affecting our great nation. Another example of an ‘earmark’ in the stimulus package that is highly beneficial “$4 million in tax credits to train mine rescue teams or $760 million for buyers of nonpolluting electric cars.” (4) All in all pork can be beneficial in many ways to both the nation as a whole, but most importantly to the communities that consequently benefit.

Source 1
The Enduring Debate Classic and Contemporary Readings in American Politics, Fourth Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. p. 164, 170
Source 2
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/09/top-democrats-cite-earmarks-as-worthy-projects/
Source 3
http://www.erollover.com/blog/2009-economy/2009-economic-stimulus-bill
Source 4
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2008/oct/08/earmarks-bailout-bill-some-good-some-bad/


Chris Cacio
Period 6
Civics L4

Bills of Greed

The novel The Enduring Debate illustrates how awful earmarks and pork barrel spending can become. The past should represent the mistakes once made, which should never be made again. Yet it seems that the very same waste in the bill under Clinton in 1997 has come back to repeat itself in 2009. The lack of knowledge about what was inside the actual stimulus is evident in both times. “Members of both parties chafed at having to vote on legislation crafted in such haste that few actually knew what was inside the 40-pund, 16-inch, 4,000 page end product…” (1) The recent stimulus passed has thousands upon thousands of “pet projects” that are still being worked out, showing that many do not know the entirety of what they are signing. Both spent billions upon billions of wasted taxpayer money that may be spent wisely, but is not always true in the case of tattoo removal or many other aspects of both bills. Congress should not let history repeat itself, yet it seems like they are following the same path walked 12 years ago.


Chapter 28 shows that earmarks may be a necessity if Congress ever desires to get a major bill passed. To appease all that vote, pork barrel spending allows nearly every state contentment so that they can greedily get what they want. CAGW searches through the thousands of earmarks, trying to single out what could be considered waste and what may be a necessary usage of money. Jonathan Cohn argued that this needs to be enforced because some programs do not deserve government spending. “You could argue, as pork-busters do, that, while projects like these may serve some positive function in society-perhaps even deserving of some government money-they should not be on the federal dime. Let the Hawaiians pay for their own calcium rich dinners!” (1) This is a very true statement because much of pork barrel spending is allocated among programs that are not the responsibility of government to fund. Some areas such as pollution and infrastructure may sometimes be necessary, yet it may sometimes be too hard to weed out the abuse from the worthy causes within pork barrel spending. Therefore, there may be some positives within earmarks because it allows for beneficial programs and an easier passing of a bill, yet the greed, neglect, and poor usage of taxpayer money still litters the lines of much pork barrel spending.

Source 1-David T. Canon, John J. Coleman, Kenneth R. Mayer, The Enduring Debate, 4th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006

Source 2-http://www.8000credit.org/150/