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.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
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.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
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
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
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
Monday, March 16, 2009
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
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/
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/
Economic Stimulus: $787B. Pork Related Puns: Priceless
Chapter 27!
So many people are bothered by the porky smell emanating from this year's Economic Stimulus Package. Unfortunately, earmarks are nothing new; ask Clinton. In 1998, he signed a bill that stank high to the pork heavens. It obviously caused a stir, as there was anger amongstF" both the Democrats and Republicans at the same time. You don't tend to find them agreeing on many things, so this was obviously saying something. Regarding the 2009 stimulus, the reactions are different. Conservatives are wary of the consequences that can come from spending this sort of money on unneeded things, but Democrats seem to support it overall. Though normalcy was restored, there is little other to sigh in relief about. Clinton may have been right in the 90s, of course. He did state that "on the balance, [this bill] honors our values and strengthens our country and looks to the future."(1) So restoring a German submarine is honoring our country's values? Interesting. Unfortunately, that's nothing compared to what is being tacked on to 2009's stimulus. If you think restoring German submarines is silly, wait until you find out that "in Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill there was plenty of money for a magnetic levitation train between Disneyland and Las Vegas"(2). Obviously things have gone downhill (and not in a happy Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah way) and there doesn't seem to be any hope for us. If things are really worse than they were when money was going to "Russians [who] can [...] buy frozen chickens from Mississippi"(1) then the US is probably in trouble. Just in Connecticut there are silly things such as "The dilapidated Capewell horse nail factory; a key lynch pin for development in the area around Colt Park". (3) That's one pointless thing that's happening in one of the smallest states of the nation. What other trouble is the US in for?
Chapter 28!
Alas, it is humorous that everyone goes and backtracks on their bashing of earmarks to shyly mention how important that they can be. But it seems that earmarks seem to be given way too bad of a name for themselves. Yes there is a lot of money going to seemingly anonymous sources, but are these causes more worthy than not? Trying to browse through listed earmarks, it is more difficult to find outlandish things that have been tacked onto a bill. It makes one's eyes dry to search for that one weird earmark throughout all of the shockingly helpful investments. For instance, a randomly chosen area being funded by the '09 Stimulus can be represented by "Install[ing] new sidewalks and drainage on Curtis Street [in Meriden, CT]" (4). Though everyone pays attention to the more pointless ideas such as "The renovation of historic City Hall [in Waterbury, CT]"(5), they shouldn't forget the residents of Curtis Street who would most likely agree that they are in desperate need of drainage. Have you ever encountered bad drainage issues? It's really not pretty. The less urgent matters such as City Hall renovations to update the look can obviously wait, and shouldn't be thrust into the spotlight over the more important issues. Unfortunately, people will always focus on the negatives that come from earmarks. People knock Ted Shuster for his support of pork barreling, but has anyone ever thought that he was actually trying to do some good? Now, if anyone could figure out a plausible way to weed out the important investments from poor ones, that would be something. Maybe everyone could stop viciously attacking earmarks only to timidly defend them later on. That action alone proves that they aren't useless, so the US should improve their system instead of complaining.
Sources:
1--The Enduring Debate Classic and Contemporary Readings in American Politics, Fourth Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. 162, 164.
2--http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1477075,CST-EDT-simon15.article
3--http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_city/Hartford/CT
4--http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_city/Meriden/CT
5--http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_city/Waterbury/CT
So many people are bothered by the porky smell emanating from this year's Economic Stimulus Package. Unfortunately, earmarks are nothing new; ask Clinton. In 1998, he signed a bill that stank high to the pork heavens. It obviously caused a stir, as there was anger amongstF" both the Democrats and Republicans at the same time. You don't tend to find them agreeing on many things, so this was obviously saying something. Regarding the 2009 stimulus, the reactions are different. Conservatives are wary of the consequences that can come from spending this sort of money on unneeded things, but Democrats seem to support it overall. Though normalcy was restored, there is little other to sigh in relief about. Clinton may have been right in the 90s, of course. He did state that "on the balance, [this bill] honors our values and strengthens our country and looks to the future."(1) So restoring a German submarine is honoring our country's values? Interesting. Unfortunately, that's nothing compared to what is being tacked on to 2009's stimulus. If you think restoring German submarines is silly, wait until you find out that "in Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill there was plenty of money for a magnetic levitation train between Disneyland and Las Vegas"(2). Obviously things have gone downhill (and not in a happy Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah way) and there doesn't seem to be any hope for us. If things are really worse than they were when money was going to "Russians [who] can [...] buy frozen chickens from Mississippi"(1) then the US is probably in trouble. Just in Connecticut there are silly things such as "The dilapidated Capewell horse nail factory; a key lynch pin for development in the area around Colt Park". (3) That's one pointless thing that's happening in one of the smallest states of the nation. What other trouble is the US in for?
Chapter 28!
Alas, it is humorous that everyone goes and backtracks on their bashing of earmarks to shyly mention how important that they can be. But it seems that earmarks seem to be given way too bad of a name for themselves. Yes there is a lot of money going to seemingly anonymous sources, but are these causes more worthy than not? Trying to browse through listed earmarks, it is more difficult to find outlandish things that have been tacked onto a bill. It makes one's eyes dry to search for that one weird earmark throughout all of the shockingly helpful investments. For instance, a randomly chosen area being funded by the '09 Stimulus can be represented by "Install[ing] new sidewalks and drainage on Curtis Street [in Meriden, CT]" (4). Though everyone pays attention to the more pointless ideas such as "The renovation of historic City Hall [in Waterbury, CT]"(5), they shouldn't forget the residents of Curtis Street who would most likely agree that they are in desperate need of drainage. Have you ever encountered bad drainage issues? It's really not pretty. The less urgent matters such as City Hall renovations to update the look can obviously wait, and shouldn't be thrust into the spotlight over the more important issues. Unfortunately, people will always focus on the negatives that come from earmarks. People knock Ted Shuster for his support of pork barreling, but has anyone ever thought that he was actually trying to do some good? Now, if anyone could figure out a plausible way to weed out the important investments from poor ones, that would be something. Maybe everyone could stop viciously attacking earmarks only to timidly defend them later on. That action alone proves that they aren't useless, so the US should improve their system instead of complaining.
Sources:
1--The Enduring Debate Classic and Contemporary Readings in American Politics, Fourth Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. 162, 164.
2--http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1477075,CST-EDT-simon15.article
3--http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_city/Hartford/CT
4--http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_city/Meriden/CT
5--http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_city/Waterbury/CT
Pork or Progress?
Is pork barrel spending imperative? Some may debate that adding “pork” to a proposed bill is highly iniquitous and needless spending. However, the discussion of earmarks has also been analyzed as vital and inescapable. When concerning the newly declared stimulus package, both the positive and negative side of “pork barrel spending” has been in deliberation.
Chapter 21: Plenty of bills have been laden with lard from a wealth of tacked on pork spending. Even after President Obama declared that, “he did not allow any members of Congress to insert wasteful, last-minute earmarks in their bills to benefit special interests in their states and districts”(1) it is not a surprise that the bill still contains some hidden spending. For example, $98 million of the precious tax payers money will go to building a “polar icebreaker”. This ship will be available of the US Coast Guard in order to sail to the frozen Arctic Ocean. From what I know, cutting through a bunch of ice will not help to stimulate the economy. Also, more of a portion of our money will be going towards homeland security. Including a, “$200 million to "design and furnish" the Department of Homeland Security headquarters"(1). As you can see, much of our money is going to things that aren't even concerned in this bill. It was intended to be to stimulate the economy, but the tacked on earmarks are far from doing anything of that sort.
Chapter 22:Before bashing all pork, somethings need to be realized. The stimulus plan does have some pork spending, but could it have even been avoided? With a bill so large and spending so much money, it would be difficult to pull out all of the pork. It could be a waste to remove such things. Plus, pork, “constitutes less than one percent of the overall federal budget” (2) and if the money is going towards something productive then it could be a good thing. Also, “pork represents a very cheap way to keep our sputtering legislative process from grinding to a halt.” (3) Hence, it is the lubricant that keeps the gears of congress from deteriorating. It is needed to buy of coalition members or gain political power in your state or area.
Sources:
1)http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html
2)The Enduring Debate (page 124)
3) The Enduring Debate (page 135)
Chapter 21: Plenty of bills have been laden with lard from a wealth of tacked on pork spending. Even after President Obama declared that, “he did not allow any members of Congress to insert wasteful, last-minute earmarks in their bills to benefit special interests in their states and districts”(1) it is not a surprise that the bill still contains some hidden spending. For example, $98 million of the precious tax payers money will go to building a “polar icebreaker”. This ship will be available of the US Coast Guard in order to sail to the frozen Arctic Ocean. From what I know, cutting through a bunch of ice will not help to stimulate the economy. Also, more of a portion of our money will be going towards homeland security. Including a, “$200 million to "design and furnish" the Department of Homeland Security headquarters"(1). As you can see, much of our money is going to things that aren't even concerned in this bill. It was intended to be to stimulate the economy, but the tacked on earmarks are far from doing anything of that sort.
Chapter 22:Before bashing all pork, somethings need to be realized. The stimulus plan does have some pork spending, but could it have even been avoided? With a bill so large and spending so much money, it would be difficult to pull out all of the pork. It could be a waste to remove such things. Plus, pork, “constitutes less than one percent of the overall federal budget” (2) and if the money is going towards something productive then it could be a good thing. Also, “pork represents a very cheap way to keep our sputtering legislative process from grinding to a halt.” (3) Hence, it is the lubricant that keeps the gears of congress from deteriorating. It is needed to buy of coalition members or gain political power in your state or area.
Sources:
1)http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html
2)The Enduring Debate (page 124)
3) The Enduring Debate (page 135)
Porking not the worst of our problems
Chapter 27 "Rolling Out the Pork Barrel"
The concept of an earmark-ridden budget plan is not really news for the U.S. economy. In 1997, Congress' plan to pass the first balanced-budget bill in two decades fell flat on its face after a run through budget seasons/midterm elections. Most of the pork in the bill was of course spending money that the government did not have, fiscal opportunism at its finest - some credible, but outweighed by the sheer amount of waste; ironically, "all but a few members of Congress claimed to hate the damned thing." But the majority still voted for it, as it gave the Dems their health-care/agriculture reforms and the Republicans got their missiles (The Reps were its main opponents) . Even former president Clinton acknowledged that the Bill had "a lot of little things tucked away there that I wish weren't." While the effects of the 1998 $520 billion omnibus spending spree had already drained billions from any future budget surplus, I can only imagine how much further the $410 billion one will drive us (although this bill has a more significant purpose, we're counting on it). Overall, the amount of pork in both bills is a clear reflection that nothing much has changed; there will never be enough money to satisfy any congressman, and as for the ramifications: leave it for the next generation.
Chapter 28 "Roll Out the Barrel: The Case Against the Case Against Pork"
Its True. Every state has been a 'victim' of pork-barreling. Some Senators aren't exactly shy about it, others sit back and let the House take care of business. Certainly in regard to the $410 billion omnibus bill there was a blatant disregard for Obama's anti-pork connotations. While most of the bacon is written off by the CAGW as, well, waste, with more research we find that its the cheapest way to keep the legislative process from completely stopping; local interests should sometimes trump national interests to keep federal powers in check(1). In this specific case, pork is such a small portion of the budget that "equalizing" its distribution would mean only modest funding changes here and there (1). Congressmen are also counting on the fact that no one will vote against a multi-billion dollar bill for a few million dollars of pork. In the public eye (to the average Joe) Pork is usually lauded - there is a sort of stimulation on the district level that has eventually been known to trickle up. Therefore its no suprise that, once again, although with strong Republican opposition the bill was still passed.
Source(s):
1. The Enduring Debate. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006
The concept of an earmark-ridden budget plan is not really news for the U.S. economy. In 1997, Congress' plan to pass the first balanced-budget bill in two decades fell flat on its face after a run through budget seasons/midterm elections. Most of the pork in the bill was of course spending money that the government did not have, fiscal opportunism at its finest - some credible, but outweighed by the sheer amount of waste; ironically, "all but a few members of Congress claimed to hate the damned thing." But the majority still voted for it, as it gave the Dems their health-care/agriculture reforms and the Republicans got their missiles (The Reps were its main opponents) . Even former president Clinton acknowledged that the Bill had "a lot of little things tucked away there that I wish weren't." While the effects of the 1998 $520 billion omnibus spending spree had already drained billions from any future budget surplus, I can only imagine how much further the $410 billion one will drive us (although this bill has a more significant purpose, we're counting on it). Overall, the amount of pork in both bills is a clear reflection that nothing much has changed; there will never be enough money to satisfy any congressman, and as for the ramifications: leave it for the next generation.
Chapter 28 "Roll Out the Barrel: The Case Against the Case Against Pork"
Its True. Every state has been a 'victim' of pork-barreling. Some Senators aren't exactly shy about it, others sit back and let the House take care of business. Certainly in regard to the $410 billion omnibus bill there was a blatant disregard for Obama's anti-pork connotations. While most of the bacon is written off by the CAGW as, well, waste, with more research we find that its the cheapest way to keep the legislative process from completely stopping; local interests should sometimes trump national interests to keep federal powers in check(1). In this specific case, pork is such a small portion of the budget that "equalizing" its distribution would mean only modest funding changes here and there (1). Congressmen are also counting on the fact that no one will vote against a multi-billion dollar bill for a few million dollars of pork. In the public eye (to the average Joe) Pork is usually lauded - there is a sort of stimulation on the district level that has eventually been known to trickle up. Therefore its no suprise that, once again, although with strong Republican opposition the bill was still passed.
Source(s):
1. The Enduring Debate. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006
Is Pork Spending a Must or a Bust?
Chapter 27:
Pork barreling has been a controversial issue for decades, which is especially evident in America today. Sean Paige, author of “Rolling Out the Pork Barrel” (an excerpt from The Enduring Debate) visibly presents his opposition to pork barrel spending. He voices that in the past, Congress has repeatedly passed bills without thinking about how it will be paid for. Last year, “$9.1 billion in additional spending was ‘forward funded’-which means that Congress will spend it now and figure out how to pay for it later” (Source 2. Page 162). Not to mention, a number of the bills Congress passes appear to be wasteful. For instance, “funding toward any stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project" (1) was supposed to be prohibited in the stimulus bill, but this requirement was not accepted in the final version. One earmark that was a result of this states $150 million will be devoted to parking improvements at the Little League facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico (1). Another example of ridiculous pork in the stimulus bill states that $6 million will be directed towards snow maintenance for Spring Mountain ski area located in Minnesota (1). With all of the debt, unemployment, and hardship that are currently around us, are improved parking lots and snow maintenance facilities really necessary? Paige would agree that these examples of pork are both improvident and outrageous.
Chapter 28
Taking a different side from Paige, Jonathan Cohn (author of “Roll Out the Barrel: The Case Against the Case Against Pork”) believes that there is more to pork spending than meets the eye. Although presidents in the past assured that they would eliminate pork from future bills, they usually didn’t hold true to that promise (2). Cohn points out that earmarks could have been what the Founding Fathers wanted for the United States government. As stated in The Enduring Debate, “favoring legislatures with small gifts for their districts in order to achieve great things for the nation is an act not of sin but of statesmanship” (Source 2. Page 173). Cohn argues that one must peel back the onion layers of the pork or look at the greater affect it will have on the country as a whole. There are a number of earmarks in the stimulus package that appear to be pork, when in fact; they ultimately benefit all of America. For example, a previous law stated that employers that worked on a yacht that was 65 feet or more were required to get insurance. An earmark was placed in the stimulus bill that went against this law, stating that insurance for these workers is no longer required. One may ask, how is this significant to the rest of the country? It is important because many yacht workers could not afford the insurance, so they were out of a job. Thus, this earmark in the stimulus package was created to correct this problem. It allows Americans to work on these ships without having to worry about paying for insurance, which ultimately, benefits our economy. More Americans with jobs mean that more money will go back into the economy because they will have money to spend (3). Another example of pork that is beneficial to America is regarding the textile industry. This earmark states that TSA (Transportation Security Administration) uniforms must be made in the United States (3). At first glance, this amendment seems outlandish because what difference would it make where the clothing is made? However, if you dig deeper into this pork, you will see that its intentions are respectable. Not only will it create more jobs in the textile industry in America, but it will also stimulate the economy, just like the other earmark stated above plans on doing. Both of these examples of pork in the stimulus bill reflect the points of Cohn, thus showing how some “porks” can be advantageous to America.
(Source 1) http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html?PageNr=2
(Source 2)
David T. Canon, John J. Coleman, Kenneth R. Mayer, ed., The Enduring Debate, 4th ed. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006), 161-173.
(Source 3)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29025047/
Claire FIchtel
Civics L4
Period 6
Pork barreling has been a controversial issue for decades, which is especially evident in America today. Sean Paige, author of “Rolling Out the Pork Barrel” (an excerpt from The Enduring Debate) visibly presents his opposition to pork barrel spending. He voices that in the past, Congress has repeatedly passed bills without thinking about how it will be paid for. Last year, “$9.1 billion in additional spending was ‘forward funded’-which means that Congress will spend it now and figure out how to pay for it later” (Source 2. Page 162). Not to mention, a number of the bills Congress passes appear to be wasteful. For instance, “funding toward any stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project" (1) was supposed to be prohibited in the stimulus bill, but this requirement was not accepted in the final version. One earmark that was a result of this states $150 million will be devoted to parking improvements at the Little League facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico (1). Another example of ridiculous pork in the stimulus bill states that $6 million will be directed towards snow maintenance for Spring Mountain ski area located in Minnesota (1). With all of the debt, unemployment, and hardship that are currently around us, are improved parking lots and snow maintenance facilities really necessary? Paige would agree that these examples of pork are both improvident and outrageous.
Chapter 28
Taking a different side from Paige, Jonathan Cohn (author of “Roll Out the Barrel: The Case Against the Case Against Pork”) believes that there is more to pork spending than meets the eye. Although presidents in the past assured that they would eliminate pork from future bills, they usually didn’t hold true to that promise (2). Cohn points out that earmarks could have been what the Founding Fathers wanted for the United States government. As stated in The Enduring Debate, “favoring legislatures with small gifts for their districts in order to achieve great things for the nation is an act not of sin but of statesmanship” (Source 2. Page 173). Cohn argues that one must peel back the onion layers of the pork or look at the greater affect it will have on the country as a whole. There are a number of earmarks in the stimulus package that appear to be pork, when in fact; they ultimately benefit all of America. For example, a previous law stated that employers that worked on a yacht that was 65 feet or more were required to get insurance. An earmark was placed in the stimulus bill that went against this law, stating that insurance for these workers is no longer required. One may ask, how is this significant to the rest of the country? It is important because many yacht workers could not afford the insurance, so they were out of a job. Thus, this earmark in the stimulus package was created to correct this problem. It allows Americans to work on these ships without having to worry about paying for insurance, which ultimately, benefits our economy. More Americans with jobs mean that more money will go back into the economy because they will have money to spend (3). Another example of pork that is beneficial to America is regarding the textile industry. This earmark states that TSA (Transportation Security Administration) uniforms must be made in the United States (3). At first glance, this amendment seems outlandish because what difference would it make where the clothing is made? However, if you dig deeper into this pork, you will see that its intentions are respectable. Not only will it create more jobs in the textile industry in America, but it will also stimulate the economy, just like the other earmark stated above plans on doing. Both of these examples of pork in the stimulus bill reflect the points of Cohn, thus showing how some “porks” can be advantageous to America.
(Source 1) http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html?PageNr=2
(Source 2)
David T. Canon, John J. Coleman, Kenneth R. Mayer, ed., The Enduring Debate, 4th ed. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006), 161-173.
(Source 3)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29025047/
Claire FIchtel
Civics L4
Period 6
Pork, Good or Bad?
Chapter 27
Earmarks, or pork barrels are really rather ridiculous when it comes right down to it. In the current economic stimulus package about $2 million was given for Swine Odor Removal. Hear that? That’s wasting $2 million of our taxpayers dollars in order to make swine odor smell better. Here in South Windsor
Chapter 28
However, it is said by
Should You Judge a Book by Its Cover?
Chapter 27-
The excessive amount of money that is being given to random unnecessary causes in the stimulus bill because of the earmarks is beyond unreasonable; it’s unacceptable. Some of these ridiculous spending sprees include “$300 million to buy "green" cars for federal employees” and “a tax credit toward the purchase of NEVs, which closely resemble golf carts in appearance. They are considered green vehicles because they use an electric battery instead of gasoline.” (1) The most absurd part of this is that the NEVs are not even legal on the highway because they can only reach up to 20 to 25 miles per hour. This waste of taxpayer’s hard-earned money is almost as good as the earmarks contained in the 1997 $520 billion omnibus spending bill such as the “$1.2 million for a project called ‘Building America’; and $400,000 for another called ‘Rebuilding America.’” (2) Did they really have that little faith in the first plan that they are already building funds for the second plan? Not only should Congress be ashamed for putting these ludicrous earmarks into the stimulus plan, but the President of the United States should be ashamed for signing it. Last, but not least, we should think about how OUR money- the money that we are earning during an economic recession- is being used when we are in the voting booths during the Presidential and Legislative elections.
Chapter 28-
While “pork barreling” and earmarks are criticized every day in the media and by organizations like the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), there are actually some cases were the earmarks ARE necessary. This was the case in the 1997 omnibus spending plan with the so called “$3 million “Black Hole” from the Pentagon where they wanted to create an observatory in South America in order to do research at the University of North Carolina.” (2) Not only could this research be very beneficial, but it can only be done in the southern hemisphere. One example of this in our current stimulus package is a $4 billion dollar earmark that goes to law enforcement. “The COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) hiring program would receive $1 billion, enough money to hire and train 13,000 new police officers and fund 75% of their salaries for three years.” (3) This seems like an essential use of American’s tax dollars. This money will not go to only one state; some of the states that stand to benefit from this earmark are Iowa, Maine and North Carolina. People should not just cast off earmarks because of they are considered earmarks. Even the media director of CAGW, Jim Campi, admits that they do not do research about the reasons behind the earmarks. As people of the United States we should be responsible and find out what is going through legislative member’s minds when they decide to insert these earmarks. We “should not judge a book by its cover” and investigate the cause before we decide if it is worth our tax money.
Sources:
(1) http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html
(2) The Enduring Debate Classic and Contemporary Readings in American Politics, Fourth Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005.
(3) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-04-crimemoney_N.htm
The excessive amount of money that is being given to random unnecessary causes in the stimulus bill because of the earmarks is beyond unreasonable; it’s unacceptable. Some of these ridiculous spending sprees include “$300 million to buy "green" cars for federal employees” and “a tax credit toward the purchase of NEVs, which closely resemble golf carts in appearance. They are considered green vehicles because they use an electric battery instead of gasoline.” (1) The most absurd part of this is that the NEVs are not even legal on the highway because they can only reach up to 20 to 25 miles per hour. This waste of taxpayer’s hard-earned money is almost as good as the earmarks contained in the 1997 $520 billion omnibus spending bill such as the “$1.2 million for a project called ‘Building America’; and $400,000 for another called ‘Rebuilding America.’” (2) Did they really have that little faith in the first plan that they are already building funds for the second plan? Not only should Congress be ashamed for putting these ludicrous earmarks into the stimulus plan, but the President of the United States should be ashamed for signing it. Last, but not least, we should think about how OUR money- the money that we are earning during an economic recession- is being used when we are in the voting booths during the Presidential and Legislative elections.
Chapter 28-
While “pork barreling” and earmarks are criticized every day in the media and by organizations like the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), there are actually some cases were the earmarks ARE necessary. This was the case in the 1997 omnibus spending plan with the so called “$3 million “Black Hole” from the Pentagon where they wanted to create an observatory in South America in order to do research at the University of North Carolina.” (2) Not only could this research be very beneficial, but it can only be done in the southern hemisphere. One example of this in our current stimulus package is a $4 billion dollar earmark that goes to law enforcement. “The COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) hiring program would receive $1 billion, enough money to hire and train 13,000 new police officers and fund 75% of their salaries for three years.” (3) This seems like an essential use of American’s tax dollars. This money will not go to only one state; some of the states that stand to benefit from this earmark are Iowa, Maine and North Carolina. People should not just cast off earmarks because of they are considered earmarks. Even the media director of CAGW, Jim Campi, admits that they do not do research about the reasons behind the earmarks. As people of the United States we should be responsible and find out what is going through legislative member’s minds when they decide to insert these earmarks. We “should not judge a book by its cover” and investigate the cause before we decide if it is worth our tax money.
Sources:
(1) http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html
(2) The Enduring Debate Classic and Contemporary Readings in American Politics, Fourth Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005.
(3) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-04-crimemoney_N.htm
Anyone for Leftovers? Stimulus Bill still has plenty of Pork Spending
In Chapter 27 of The Enduring Debate, it is made clear that the bill received a majority of its support from only the Democratic Party. The author of this chapter, writes, “Clinton and the Democrats got $1.2 billion to begin hiring 30,000 of 100,000 new teachers…” (1) and goes on to list many other pet projects that Clinton’s party was able to add into the bill. In today’s stimulus bill, support is also from mainly from Democrats, even though President Obama initially called for more bipartisan actions. The bill passed the Senate with a 60-38 vote, and only 2 votes for the bill were made by Republicans. (2) Another connection to the stimulus proposed by President Clinton is the fact that both bills include additions to the already-existing healthcare systems. The 1998 legislation allowed “$1.7 billion in new home-health-care money for Medicare.” (1) The present bill is even more outrageous when dealing with healthcare, supplying $90 billion for aid to state Medicare programs alone. (3)
Chapter 28 discusses why it may be valid to include some earmarks in the stimulus bill. It seems that the Founding Fathers understood the importance of earmarks, because this power “was a way to keep federal power in check” (1) Using earmarks, Senators and Representatives can make sure that their state government has more control of its finances. Senior economist Car Leahey shows a similar philosophy towards this new stimulus bill, saying, “One congressman's earmark is another legislative way to fix a serious problem in his district.” (4) Finally, it is important to see the main purpose behind pork spending in the first place. A lobbyist for a highway project back in the 1990’s said that the pet projects are “the glue that’s going to hold the damn thing together,” (1) when referring the highway project bill. This is still true with the present stimulus bill, which received the minimum number of votes to possibly pass the Senate. Needing a 3/5 majority, exactly sixty members of the Senate voted in favor of the stimulus. (2) Without the earmarks to protect it, this bill could have easily been destroyed in Congress. Instead, the stimulus will be quickly signed by President Obama, and will immediately begin repairing the bleak financial situation that the United States is facing.
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- United States Senate, U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session, March 2009,
3- “Getting to $787 Billion,” Wall Street Journal, 17 February 2009,
4- William Douglas and David Lightman, “Earmark reform? Stimulus bill contains 9,000,” Cleveland.com, 22 February 2009,
Chapter 28 discusses why it may be valid to include some earmarks in the stimulus bill. It seems that the Founding Fathers understood the importance of earmarks, because this power “was a way to keep federal power in check” (1) Using earmarks, Senators and Representatives can make sure that their state government has more control of its finances. Senior economist Car Leahey shows a similar philosophy towards this new stimulus bill, saying, “One congressman's earmark is another legislative way to fix a serious problem in his district.” (4) Finally, it is important to see the main purpose behind pork spending in the first place. A lobbyist for a highway project back in the 1990’s said that the pet projects are “the glue that’s going to hold the damn thing together,” (1) when referring the highway project bill. This is still true with the present stimulus bill, which received the minimum number of votes to possibly pass the Senate. Needing a 3/5 majority, exactly sixty members of the Senate voted in favor of the stimulus. (2) Without the earmarks to protect it, this bill could have easily been destroyed in Congress. Instead, the stimulus will be quickly signed by President Obama, and will immediately begin repairing the bleak financial situation that the United States is facing.
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- United States Senate, U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session, March 2009,
3- “Getting to $787 Billion,” Wall Street Journal, 17 February 2009,
4- William Douglas and David Lightman, “Earmark reform? Stimulus bill contains 9,000,” Cleveland.com, 22 February 2009,
Stimulus Package's Pork Spending: A Delicious Feast or Rotting Left Overs?
Chapter 27-
There is an excess amount of earmarks hidden in the Stimulus Package, to the point where citizens are begining to question the legitimacy of this bill, just as they did in 1997 when President Clinton proposed a similar requests containing an over abundance of "pork." In the modern stimulus bill there is "about $900 billion in the Senate," and the bill has just about "morphed into a Christmas list." Many of these bills don't benefit the majority of the US citizens directly. There is currently $200,000 set aside for "the task of tattoo removal." [1] But how many US citizens have tattoos? And out of those people, how many will actually seek to have a tattoo removed? It's earmarks like these that serve as nothing more than a waste of the federal budget. Another such bill is for the compensation of Filipino World War II veterans in return for their service totaling $198 million. This seems like a just cause, right? However, most of these veterans are not even current residents of the United States. [1] Aren't there better places we could be sending our precious tax dollars?
Chapter 28-
It is important to realize, as Chapter 28 points out, that not all of the earmarks have merit on their own. This is why they have been attached to a bill, frequently “after hearings end because [senators] know that nobody is going to vote against a multibillion-dollar bill just because it has a few million dollars of pork tucked in.” [2] However, in this chapter of The Enduring Debate, it also suggests that some of the projects we have deemed as "pork barrel spending" may actually have some merit. “There is a respectable argument that sometimes parochial needs are in fact a legitimate federal interest...” [2] The ultimate goal of the modern stimulus bill, and the goals of all the ones before it have been to stimulate the economy. As annoying as the pork barrel spending can seem to the tax payers, it does in turn create jobs in its respective state or district, in turn contributing to the national economy. For instance, Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley has secured $500 million for biofuel makers in order to bring jobs to Iowa. [1] To those who live outside of Iowa, there will be no direct benefit from this earmark. However, once the economy of Iowa becomes more stabilized as a result of an increase in available employment, the national economy will benefit as well. This can also be seen in some of programs that the Democratic party dropped from the package after the Republicans “had singled out for derision,” [3] This included a project to restore the Jefferson Memorial, which reflects some of the public works projects originating from the New Deal, in which the government created and funded projects whose single purpose was to create jobs. This is taking advantage of the Constitution’s goal to “harness mankind’s corrupt tendencies and channel them into constructive directions.” [2] Sometimes it is necessary to allow earmarks so that the interest of the national power doesn’t get too out of hand and completely dominate over the local interest. As the saying goes, “you need to give a little to get a little.”
Sources
[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29025047/
[2] The Enduring Debate" Fourth Edition Canon, David T. Coleman, John J. Mayer, Kenneth R.
Norton & Company Inc. 2006
[3] http://www.8000credit.org/150/
There is an excess amount of earmarks hidden in the Stimulus Package, to the point where citizens are begining to question the legitimacy of this bill, just as they did in 1997 when President Clinton proposed a similar requests containing an over abundance of "pork." In the modern stimulus bill there is "about $900 billion in the Senate," and the bill has just about "morphed into a Christmas list." Many of these bills don't benefit the majority of the US citizens directly. There is currently $200,000 set aside for "the task of tattoo removal." [1] But how many US citizens have tattoos? And out of those people, how many will actually seek to have a tattoo removed? It's earmarks like these that serve as nothing more than a waste of the federal budget. Another such bill is for the compensation of Filipino World War II veterans in return for their service totaling $198 million. This seems like a just cause, right? However, most of these veterans are not even current residents of the United States. [1] Aren't there better places we could be sending our precious tax dollars?
Chapter 28-
It is important to realize, as Chapter 28 points out, that not all of the earmarks have merit on their own. This is why they have been attached to a bill, frequently “after hearings end because [senators] know that nobody is going to vote against a multibillion-dollar bill just because it has a few million dollars of pork tucked in.” [2] However, in this chapter of The Enduring Debate, it also suggests that some of the projects we have deemed as "pork barrel spending" may actually have some merit. “There is a respectable argument that sometimes parochial needs are in fact a legitimate federal interest...” [2] The ultimate goal of the modern stimulus bill, and the goals of all the ones before it have been to stimulate the economy. As annoying as the pork barrel spending can seem to the tax payers, it does in turn create jobs in its respective state or district, in turn contributing to the national economy. For instance, Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley has secured $500 million for biofuel makers in order to bring jobs to Iowa. [1] To those who live outside of Iowa, there will be no direct benefit from this earmark. However, once the economy of Iowa becomes more stabilized as a result of an increase in available employment, the national economy will benefit as well. This can also be seen in some of programs that the Democratic party dropped from the package after the Republicans “had singled out for derision,” [3] This included a project to restore the Jefferson Memorial, which reflects some of the public works projects originating from the New Deal, in which the government created and funded projects whose single purpose was to create jobs. This is taking advantage of the Constitution’s goal to “harness mankind’s corrupt tendencies and channel them into constructive directions.” [2] Sometimes it is necessary to allow earmarks so that the interest of the national power doesn’t get too out of hand and completely dominate over the local interest. As the saying goes, “you need to give a little to get a little.”
Sources
[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29025047/
[2] The Enduring Debate" Fourth Edition Canon, David T. Coleman, John J. Mayer, Kenneth R.
Norton & Company Inc. 2006
[3] http://www.8000credit.org/150/
Speaking of Pork
Each writer must find his or her own aspects of the stimulus bill that coincide with the issues in Enduring Debate. In other words, there is to be no piggybacking. If done= a zero.
"Seek and ye shall find".
"Seek and ye shall find".
Not the Lift We Need
Obama’s pork-spending stimulus plan is designed for failure and a meager attempt to set the economy straight. Currently, America is in an economic recession that Obama plans to fix by passing a bill distributing $787 billion to various funds. This stimulus plan is based off the Keynesian method, which is solving economic downturns with “large infusions of government stimulus.” (1) Although in attempt to give the common person more pocket money for spending, this plan is ultimately going to increase taxation and interest rates. Where exactly is this $787 billion stimulus coming from? With America already trillions in debt, this plan simply does not seem reasonable without taxation.
Obama also stated that he will “put money in the pockets of the American people, create new jobs, and invest in our future.” (2) Obama has claimed that his plan will open up over 2.5 million jobs. But my question is how does one produce that many jobs? Artificial jobs will not stimulate the economy because there will be no productivity. In order for people to have successful long-term jobs, they need to be producing a good or service that people want. You can’t just invent 2.5 millions jobs out of thin air. As well as this, Obama’s statement that he will put money in the pockets of the American people is questionable. How is Obama to put money in the pockets of Americans without taking it out of others?
Another shocking unmoral issue in the plan deals with earmarks. “President Obama vowed to be anti earmarks during his election campaigns” (3) although this bill proves otherwise. The bill itself is roughly 1, 400 pages long, which includes thousands of earmarks. This is clearly wrong and intolerable. Before any bill should be approved, the earmarks should be weeded out. Our taxes are going to support this bill that includes over “9000 pet projects recommended by both the Democrats and the Republicans together.” (4) This is appalling. If it weren’t for the thousands of earmarks, the plan would be much lower.
(1) http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9931
(2) http://lateline.muzi.net/news/ll/english/10086010.shtml
(3) http://www.8000credit.org/150/
(4) http://www.8000credit.org/150/
Sunday, March 15, 2009
$7.7 Billion of Putrid Pork
1. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
2. http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
3. http://www.8000credit.org/150/
It's Doing its Job
Drastic measures need to be taken to improve the United States economy. The stimulus package is the first radical step in attempting to recuperate it. This fix cannot be done with just one bill or portion of money, but this package approved by President Obama is a good place to begin. This is not our saving grace and it is not perfect, and the American people should know that before they criticize it.
If it does its job it will put money in the peoples pockets who need it most, get more money to state governments, and provide jobs through construction projects. It is very important that each state gets some portion of the money, “to make sure that they don't have to either have big tax increases or lay a million people off. Either one, in this economy, would be bad.”1 It has already been shown that the stimulus package will do its job. The saving of 25 jobs in Ohio has been traced directly back to the spending of the stimulus money. If this is true then they are the first of the “3.5 million jobs [the stimulus will save or create] within the next two years.”2
The stimulus is just a quick fix, but I believe it is necessary. It will keep the fire from getting worse, and once it stops calming flames, we will have to come up with something new to fix our problems.
Sources:
1. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/king.clinton.transcript/#cnnSTCText
2. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=44618
If it does its job it will put money in the peoples pockets who need it most, get more money to state governments, and provide jobs through construction projects. It is very important that each state gets some portion of the money, “to make sure that they don't have to either have big tax increases or lay a million people off. Either one, in this economy, would be bad.”1 It has already been shown that the stimulus package will do its job. The saving of 25 jobs in Ohio has been traced directly back to the spending of the stimulus money. If this is true then they are the first of the “3.5 million jobs [the stimulus will save or create] within the next two years.”2
The stimulus is just a quick fix, but I believe it is necessary. It will keep the fire from getting worse, and once it stops calming flames, we will have to come up with something new to fix our problems.
Sources:
1. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/king.clinton.transcript/#cnnSTCText
2. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=44618
"Mystery Meat" of Stimulus Bill May be the Right Food for Economic Growth
Compromise has been part of American government since the time of the writing of the Constitution, and can not be eliminated now. When making a Constitution, the Founding Fathers knew that there was no way to create a document that would suit everyone perfectly; however, they understood the importance of having even an imperfect government over no government at all. In today’s society, making a stable American government is no longer the greatest concern, but compromise is still just as necessary. In times of economic crisis, it is necessary to pass some form of stimulus, even if it must include some earmarks. The greatest concern was ensuring that the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill made it through Congress, and in order for this to have happened, it required an enormous amount of cooperation that could only have been achieved with the additions of “pork spending.” Perhaps it is best to look at the original guidelines for stimulus, laid out by “the intellectual godfather of all economic-stimulus plans, economist John Maynard Keynes.” (1) In dealing with the greatest economic crisis of all time, the Great Depression, he understood the foremost issue was ensuring that government money was given back to the people, no matter how it was spent. In fact, he believed that the government could simply “fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines, which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again." (1) While this is one extreme, it is evident that America needs whatever it can get for help right now. Besides, with the abundant criticism for the “pet projects,” many citizens fail to realize that these additions to the original bill may be just as useful as the original bill itself. For instance, the “almost $2 million for swine odor and manure management for Tom Harkin” (2) will surely provide an increase in labor need in his area, helping to diminish the rapidly growing unemployment statistics. While the stimulus bill is meant to assist the nation as a whole, many of the earmarks proposed are more specific and therefore can be more efficient for jumpstarting the economy. In North Carolina, Rep. Larry Kissell argues for the manufacturing of TSA uniforms in his own state, instead of in foreign countries including Honduras and Mexico. He states that, “The immediate impact would be to bring the assembly work to the U.S., which would create jobs," (3) and the economic boost that his state would receive could eventually spread around the nation. At least this gives the U.S. a sense of hope that there is a rebound in the economy, and may lead to higher levels of spending. Furthermore, some of the so-called pork spending is only meant to fix past legislations’ mistakes. For instance, one part of the bill is meant to give Medicare funding to three hospitals that did not receive it under a former bill. Rep. Larson’s spokeswoman, Emily Barocas, made it clear that “the measure fixes a mistake in a previous law that unintentionally excluded the three hospitals.” (3) Clearly, this is not a selfish act being made on the part of Congressman Larson. Instead of looking so scrupulously at the pet projects included in the stimulus bill, perhaps it is best to look at the scope of the bill as a whole. There is no hiding the fact that the U.S. is in a crisis of great magnitude, and it is probably best to have projects that reach out to every aspect of the economy so that everyone can get their share of the “pork.”
1- Justin Fox, Will Obama's Stimulus Package Work?, 9 January 2009, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1870575,00.html
2- 8000 Credit.org, Stimulus Package Pork Spending, 1 March 2009, http://www.8000credit.org/150/
3- ProPublica.org, In the Stimulus Bill: An Earmark by Any Other Name, 5 February 2009, http://www.propublica.org/feature/welcome-in-the-stimulus-bill-an-earmark-by-any-other-name
A Rush at Imperfection
Haste makes waste as it is commonly known, yet will the current economic stimulus be simply that; waste? The debate is common whether the stimulus will have the desired affect that Obama said it would. It targets nearly every sector of the economy, and reaches out at nearly every individual across the United States. Could it be trying to do too much? That is a question that I believe is true since the current stimulus is simply handing out billions of dollars for the main causes of Tax Cuts, Healthcare, Education, Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees, Infrastructure Investment, Energy, Housing, Scientific Research, and even more areas not mentioned. It seems that this immense list may have money put into places that are not even significant to rebuilding the broken economy of America. The three main alterations that need to be made to the current economy, in my opinion, are a change in the banking structure and a clearing of toxic assets, fixing of the housing crisis that originally started this mess, and a creation of jobs to offset the side-effects of the first two and allow the economy to get back on its feet. I feel that much of the money is simply being wasted and spent on programs that have no relevance to fixing the economy. There were also a multitude of earmarks in this bill that illustrates a hypocritical side of Obama. Last Wednesday he spoke these words, "This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand." If the American people deserve a new beginning and knowledge that their tax money and investments are not being wasted, then why would he let all this money simply slip by with these earmarks? Yes, some of these earmarks are going to be spent on worthy causes, yet there is a great percentage of it that will simply be misused, misspent, and simply wasted. The last important point with the stimulus bill was that it was rushed. It was not too long ago when Obama was sworn in, yet he seems to have thrown this stimulus package together in only a few months. This is the package that is expected to have an effect for years to come, yet was definitely pushed out far too soon in my opinion. The majority of the money will not be used until later this year, or even in later years, so why would Obama not spend more time on perfecting the deficiencies rather than sending it out before almost anyone could make sense of it? He easily could have taken a few more months where him and his advisors could have stitched out the problems and saved the money that the government needs so desperately at the moment. Therefore this stimulus was a rush at perfection that will have an end result that nearly no one will be able to predict.
Sources-http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/14/hope-fear-obama-walks-fine-line-recession-talk/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1477075,CST-EDT-simon15.article
Sources-http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/14/hope-fear-obama-walks-fine-line-recession-talk/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1477075,CST-EDT-simon15.article
A Challenger Approaches: The Bright Side of the Stimulus Package
The criticism concerning Barack Obama's Stimulus Package is valid to some extent, but perhaps too harsh. Yes it is true that this bill has been loaded with earmarks, a practice which Obama himself stated to be against, but perhaps they were necessary. Earmarks are assurances that the bill won't be accepted unless certain things are done to specific areas in the country and, if they were not included, this plan may still be collecting dust. Action absolutely must be taken right away in order to help boost the economy, and that is what President Obama has begun doing by creating this package. Especially after "The unemployment rate rose to 8.1 percent from 7.6 percent in January, the highest reading since December 1983"(1), the worry level of US Citizens is going through the roof. Thankfully, the Stimulus Package is designed to help these every day people by providing them with jobs. For example, the plan gives "$28 billion -- $6.9 billion in discretionary funds and $21 billion in mandatory funds to go for specific programs"(2) to the agricultural industry, which will create jobs for many suffering farmers, "$730 million to make changes [...] to the agency's lending and investment programs"(2) to the Small Businesses Association to assist those with small businesses, and even the Department of Energy is getting aided by funds that will "create or protect nearly 3.5 million jobs over the next two years"(2). These are just a few associations that have been funded by this package in order to create much-needed jobs, and so it would seem that the package is putting the US on the right track. Unfortunately, however optimistic the bill may seem, not everyone is happy. The critics for the high spending that this bill requires are hypocritical Conservatives. These Republicans "draw the line at a stimulus bill that funnels $135 billion directly to the bankrupted state governments to help pay for Medicaid, education and infrastructure"(3) are the same ones who backed "the far larger sums wasted in their support of the terminally corrupt governments of Iraq and Afghanistan."(3) It is as if far-right Conservatives are turning a blind eye to the mess that was created by the Bush Administration, and turn right around to criticize Obama for spending a lesser amount. This is absurd, and the reason these people are even being listened to and supported is beyond comprehension. Though not 100% ideal for all Americans, at least having this plan is better than not having any at all. Obama cannot make all people happy, but he surely is taking a step in the right direction to please the struggling ones. Lighten up, critics.
Sources:
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/06/obama.stimulus/index.html?iref=newssearch
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/03/stimulus.money/index.html?iref=newssearch
(3) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/scheer
Sources:
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/06/obama.stimulus/index.html?iref=newssearch
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/03/stimulus.money/index.html?iref=newssearch
(3) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/scheer
Not the Quick Fix Americans Were Looking For
The stimulus plan that was recently signed by President Barak Obama is supposed to boost the income of the people of the United States and in turn boost the United States’ economy. This plan is supposed to create 3.5 million jobs for the American public. This should severely help the economy considering the unemployment rate has sky-rocketed because of the failing economy and the growing national debt. It also includes “$281 billion in tax cuts with $308 billion in outlays funded by the appropriations committees and about $198 billion in spending for benefit programs such as unemployment assistance, $250 payments or millions of people receiving Social Security benefits, and extra money for states to help with the Medicaid health program for the poor and disabled” (1) This money seems like it is going to be used in a way that will actually benefit the economy and the people, but there is A LOT of money in this bill that is not necessary and is not going to benefit the economy. These are the 9000 earmarks that are tacked on to the end of the stimulus plan by the representatives of the people. This extra money is only going to hurt the people more. As Senator John McCain said, “It contains much that is not stimulative, and is nothing short -- nothing short -- of generational theft.” (1) The people of today AND the people of tomorrow are going to be paying for this stimulus plans and the billions of dollars that have been tacked on to the plan because of the earmarks. Although some Americans believe that this plan will be a quick fix to all of our economic problems, they are wrong. The economy is going to take year and maybe even decades to return to the way that it was. As President Barak Obama said, “This historic step won't be the end of what we do to turn our economy around, but rather the beginning. The problems that led us into this crisis are deep and widespread, and our response must be equal to the task” (1)
Source 1: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/13/congress-readies-final-vote-b-stimulus/
Source 1: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/13/congress-readies-final-vote-b-stimulus/
Pigs in the Blanket
President Barack Obama stated that he was signing an “imperfect bill”. This imperfect bill was loaded with ‘earmarks’, a practice that President Obama was indubitably against during his campaign for the President of the United States. Just two months ago President Obama said, "We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review," after a meeting with his economic advisers (1). Obviously the President either didn’t care about the ‘pet projects’ that were being inserted or felt that the major economic deficiencies we were facing needed to be acted upon instantly, and overshadowed the massive amounts of ‘earmarks’. The American economy is most certainly in a horrendous condition, and the reasoning behind President Obama allowing this imperfect bill to be instituted. However, some of these pet projects are outlandish and highly detrimental to a bill that should help and not hinder the American economy. Our debt is increasing to the tune of $3.27 billion a day since September 28th 2008, and as of March 15th 2009 we have a national debt of $10.99 Trillion (2). These ‘earmarks’ only add to the debt of our nation, they include “a $200,000 allocated to the task of tattoo removal as Representative Howard Berman of California wanted. Not to forget the stimulus bill pork spending - almost $2 million for swine odor and manure management for Tom Harkin because it is highly urgent to treat the stink of pigs and their manure.” (3). In addition to these other ‘projects’ “$1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research; Another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.” (4). As you can see there is an immense amount of pork spending within this bill. All in all the ‘earmarks’ out weigh what this stimulus package will do for our economy.
Source 1
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/obama.stimulus/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Source 2
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Source 3
http://www.8000credit.org/150/
Source 4
http://www.erollover.com/blog/2009-economy/2009-economic-stimulus-bill
Chris Cacio
Period 6
L4 Civics
Source 1
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/obama.stimulus/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Source 2
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Source 3
http://www.8000credit.org/150/
Source 4
http://www.erollover.com/blog/2009-economy/2009-economic-stimulus-bill
Chris Cacio
Period 6
L4 Civics
Impossible to Escape
The stimulus package originally was made to support or rebuild the economy in recession by the revenue created from taxes of income, back to the tax payer in hopes that the tax payer would spend it, so that it would stimulate the economy out of the "recession." The United States' national debt is rising and it was last recorded on March 15, 2009 a national debt of 10.99 trillion dollars. Ever since September 28, 2008, our national debt continues to increase at an average of 3.72 billion dollars per day. How will the U.S. ever pay back the debt if it continues to rise and if our per day collected taxes can not even match up the the national debt per day? On March 12, 2009, as President Obama stated at the Recovery Act Implementation Conference, "money is being spent as it needs to be spent -- to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our schools, and making sure that we are putting in place the kinds of infrastructure foundations that are necessary for economic growth over the long term" if President Obama is going to spend it on that, when will we ever pay back the national debt? Generation after generation, the United States will be in the same situation; the national debt is going to rise and the people of the United States will still be paying large amount taxes. In my point of view, as President Obama worded, the "recovery" package isn't going to do any good because all President Obama gave us it the hope and his saying at the Recovery Act Implementation Conference, "I think you're up to the task; I think you guys will do extraordinary work with using these precious tax dollars that the American people have given up in order to deliver on the kind of economic growth" but no action has been taken.
Source 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us/politics/12obama-text.html?_r=1
Source 2: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html
Source 3: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Source 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us/politics/12obama-text.html?_r=1
Source 2: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html
Source 3: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Needs Some Adjustments
The stimulus package proposed by our newest president, Barack Obama, has extremely good intentions and logic behind it. It’s modeled after FDR’s New Deal which proved to be extremely effective in helping the United States climb out of the Great Depression. "Fiscal stimulus aims to boost economic activity during periods of economic weakness by increasing short-term aggregate demand.” [1] This means that the package is trying to increase the purchases of goods and services during a time where people are cutting back. If people begin to spend their money again, local and national businesses and industries can thrive, allowing for more jobs and a more stable economy. The economy will certainly benefit from the passing of the stimulus package; however, the package would be more effective if the extensive amount of earmarks that have been slipped in were to be removed. The bill as currently written “contains dozens of narrowly defined programs that send money to specific areas or cater to special interests…” [2] The earmarks found in this bill are of good intention and for good causes, but in this state of such severe economic recession, they need to take a back seat and wait for a more appropriate circumstance. Moreover, the stimulus package is a good idea, but it requires some changes before it can be an effective solution to the economic depression occurring in the United States.
Sources:
[1]http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html
[2]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29025047/
Sources:
[1]http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html
[2]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29025047/
Better than nothing
As far as I know, no bill passed has ever been perfect. Ever since the beginning of President Obama's term, expectations have been high, with promises of a bright future ahead for (at least)America's middle class. Its not surprise that the $410 billion stimulus package meant to ameliorate the recent economic recession is somewhat flawed; Pres. Obama even stated that he was signing an imperfect bill. Over 9000 earmarks have been pushed in as 'pet projects' (ironic, as most of the earmark money is going towards animals), but this only amounts to around $8 billion dollars, less than 2 percent of the total package - if you want to get particular, its 1.9% . I am not an advocate for earmarks in any way, shape, or form (especially pork barreling), but I would classify this bill as absolutely necessary in order for the government to be able to get back on its feet hopefully as Obama put it, to "mark (get it?) an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability." Although it is hypocritical, the unethical behaviour of senators/Reps is nothing new ($200,000 there, $2 million here, etc.), and there is not much we as citizens can do about it ; the economic recession is the presidents first big hurdle, and this bill will (hopefully) be the panacea to one of the biggest of our nation's many problems. Of course this is a short-term solution, but with our economy in the ditch, I don't think we can complain about the size of the tow truck.
Sources:
(1) http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre52a4h0-us-obama-spending/
(2)http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220522 (4 minutes in, its amusing)
(3)http://www.8000credit.org/150/
Sources:
(1) http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre52a4h0-us-obama-spending/
(2)http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220522 (4 minutes in, its amusing)
(3)http://www.8000credit.org/150/
Not too thrilled
President Obama promised America he would avoid all ear marks and improve the economy. He's only shooting for one now that he's a few months into the White House. A $410 Billion bill was passed in the name of helping America out of an economic crisis. However, this bill was chock full of a total 9,000 'pet projects' a euphemism for earmarks. Obama's bill is ridiculously hypocritical and there's not a lot he can do to redeem himself. Half of these bills aren't even needed for the economy, $200,000 dollars for tattoo removal because Representative Berman suggested it? And another $2 million for swine and odor management? What do we need those things for? Those are not going to immediately improve the economy and bring us out of a possible recession. In fasct they're almost never going to be actually needed. They were just put on the bill to get a vote to make it happen. It's not worth it. It's impossible to improve the economy if we're spending more and more of the tax payers dollars on little things to get different represenatives on board. Represenatives should want to fix the economy without getting their silly little ear marks in. Shouldn't they? Obama should have stuck to his guns and done what he said he was going to do. Then maybe this economic stimulus package would have gone over smoother.
Friday, March 13, 2009
As a Vegetarian, I’ll Pass on This Slice of Pork
Although the intentions of the Stimulus package sound ideal on paper, I am not convinced about the plan as a whole. Part of this stimulus package irks me in the worst way possible. I am utterly appalled at the earmarks that Senators are tacking onto the stimulus package. According to Obama, this “massive stimulus package could ultimately exceed $1 trillion” (1). If there weren’t so many earmarks on this bill, the monetary amount of this package would surely be lower. It is absolutely despicable what these Senators are doing. While part of our country is unemployed or in debt, some senators are proposing earmarks so they can have the funding for their special projects. These earmarks are not only increasing the cost of the stimulus package, but they are selfish as well. Senators propose earmarks for the good of their state, and many times, for the good of certain individuals or specific companies. In my eyes, the economy will not improve until we focus on the bigger problem at hand instead of projects for special interests.
Furthermore, it is clear that the United States government is in a substantial amount of debt and our economy is experiencing a recession. Presently, the stimulus package seems like an unreachable solution, but President Obama is trying to convince people that immediate action is required and a stimulus-spending package is the only apparent solution to address the financial crisis. President Obama said more than once that, “things are going to get worse before they get better”(1). I would like to believe that, but is that a good enough reason to push this bill through that is laden with pork barrel spending? Would it really impact the crisis that much more to spend another week cleaning up the bill? I feel uncomfortable about pushing the bill through under panicked and such emotional condition.
Moreover, there are ways for the United States government to borrow money from various sources to help pay for the stimulus package. For instance, treasury bonds can be issued to foreign governments, businesses, banks, and/or other wealthy individuals. However, issuing more of these bonds will put the United States government into even more debt that could have drastic, long-term effects on future generations of America.
Source 1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5303652.ece
Source 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-progress-report/obamas-stimulus-package_b_155279.html
Claire Fichtel
Civics L4 Period 6
3/13/09
Furthermore, it is clear that the United States government is in a substantial amount of debt and our economy is experiencing a recession. Presently, the stimulus package seems like an unreachable solution, but President Obama is trying to convince people that immediate action is required and a stimulus-spending package is the only apparent solution to address the financial crisis. President Obama said more than once that, “things are going to get worse before they get better”(1). I would like to believe that, but is that a good enough reason to push this bill through that is laden with pork barrel spending? Would it really impact the crisis that much more to spend another week cleaning up the bill? I feel uncomfortable about pushing the bill through under panicked and such emotional condition.
Moreover, there are ways for the United States government to borrow money from various sources to help pay for the stimulus package. For instance, treasury bonds can be issued to foreign governments, businesses, banks, and/or other wealthy individuals. However, issuing more of these bonds will put the United States government into even more debt that could have drastic, long-term effects on future generations of America.
Source 1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5303652.ece
Source 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-progress-report/obamas-stimulus-package_b_155279.html
Claire Fichtel
Civics L4 Period 6
3/13/09
Stimulus Package-Pork, or Real Beef for America?
Due march 16,2009 8am
www.american issuesproject.org/enough
www.8000credit.org/150/
What is your view on the stimulus package?
Assignment#2-due march 17, 2009 8am
Read the two websites listed above along with pages 123-139 of The Enduring Debate.
Find two items in the stimulus package that go along with the view propounded in chapter 21. Find two items that go along with the perspective in chapter 22. Explain your reasoning.
www.american issuesproject.org/enough
www.8000credit.org/150/
What is your view on the stimulus package?
Assignment#2-due march 17, 2009 8am
Read the two websites listed above along with pages 123-139 of The Enduring Debate.
Find two items in the stimulus package that go along with the view propounded in chapter 21. Find two items that go along with the perspective in chapter 22. Explain your reasoning.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Political Philsophy Still Debated in United States
- Supreme Court decisions are always shrouded in controversy, but few decisions can fuel a 36-year debate. The ruling made in the Roe v. Wade case of 1973 was one of those decisions. The decision was "that a woman's right to abortion was protected by the right to privacy under the Constitution's 14th Amendment," (1) and it made abortion legal in the United States. Ever since the justice's gavel fell on that historic day, groups have been actively advocating both for and against the right of pregnant women to have an abortion. Recently, on January 22, the anniversary of the infamous ruling, a large-scale anti-abortion rally was held on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The citizens and politicians who participated in the rally believe that abortion is not just a privacy issue, but a natural rights issue. If you ask an anti-abortionist, as an Iowa Representative did when he spoke, " 'At what instant does life begin?' " they will always answer, " 'Conception!' "(1) They hold the belief that the inalienable right to life that all Americans enjoy also applies to unborn fetuses.
- Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has received more attention in the month since his impeachment than in his entire political career thus far. Although it may be overkill, the coverage of his story points out the role of Classical Republican ideas in the modern United States government. Blagojevich was ousted because of several charges of corruption, particularly "engaging in 'pay-to-play' politics"(2) in an attempt to sell the Senate seat left behind by Barack Obama. The complaint was filed "after listening to wiretaps of the governor's phone conversations."(2) In recent years, the government's habit of eavesdropping on Americans' telephone conversations has been a hot topic. During the presidency of George W. Bush, such practices were used in order to find and track suspected terrorists within and outside of the U.S. The government's use of wiretapping is a clear connection to the ideas of Classical Republicanism lent to the Constitution by the ancient Greeks and Romans. They believed that the good of the state as a whole was more important than the rights of the individuals. Sometimes, individuals must give up rights for the safety and security of the state. This is clearly what is happening today. The government has decided to infringe on American individuals' right to privacy, supposedly in order to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. Evidently, the same technology and practices are now being used to protect the state of Illinois from corruption. And, just as with Bush's NSA wiretapping, Rod Blagojevich's right to privacy was limited for the good of the citizens he was elected to serve.
Barack Obama should not be labeled a Federalist just because he has been elected as the president of a federalist government. And, although the original Anti-federalists were opposed to having any form of central government, it is important to remember that Federalist and Anti-federalist are relative terms. Basically, federalists believe that the national government should be strong and have power over the state governments, anti-federalists believe that the national government should not have as much power and should be more limited in their strength. Based on this definition and the few significant actions which Obama has carried out since his inauguration, I would say that our new president is an Anti-federalist. One of the most important decisions that he has made so far was to end "the 'war on terror' as former President George W. Bush defined it." (3) Obama believes that the federal government should never be able to "circumvent longstanding U.S. laws," (3) even when the country is at war. Clearly, Barack strongly feels that the powers of the federal government should be more limited than they have been in recent years, so he is an Anti-federalist.
Sources(1) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/obama.abortion/index.html?iref=newssearch
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/08/illinois.governor.impeachment/index.html?iref=newssearch
(3) http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-gitmo0123.artjan23,0,498089.story
Contemporary Constitutional Actions
Nicole Davoren
Period 6 Civics
1.The Natural Rights Philosophy was first formed by John Locke. He believed that if you are born a human being, then you automatically have the right to life, liberty, and property, and the government is there to protect these rights. A recent event unfolded that has shown how our government will investigate when any of these rights are broken. On Friday February 6th, a doctors license was revoked. His patent, a teenager, was planning on having an abortion, gave birth to a live baby, and immediately the baby was killed when clinic staffers put it in to a plastic bag and threw it in the trash. “ A fetus born alive cannot be put to death even if its mother intended to have an abortion” says police. It is rare for a baby born at 23 weeks, such as this one, to live. However, the staff violated the natural rights philosophy when they did noting to help the baby live and put it to its death.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/florida.abortion/index.html
2.Classical Republicanism is the theory where the role of the citizen is to show civic virtue to benefit the common good, and the government and its people act on the good of the community, rather their individual interests. One example of Classical Republicanism today is how some Stop and Shops and Shop Rite pharmacy's in Connecticut are giving away free medication to the public. “All you need is a doctor's prescription, no insurance is necessary. Stop and Shop started offering the free drugs in January during the height of the cold and flu season” says the article. This shows Classical Republicanism because the stores are putting aside their want to make money, and promoting the common good by helping them to stay healthy and get medication, when they other wise couldn't afford them.
Source: http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/news_wtnh_cromwell_health_free_antibiotics_200902052330_rev1
3.President Obama's actions have shown us that he is a Federalist. According to the West's American Government textbook Federalists are “those who favor a strong central government and the new Constitution.” An example of how Obama shows that he is a Federalist, is his proposed economic stimulus plan. This plan is Federalist, because it the central government will delegate where and what the money will be put into, and it will be shared throughout the entire country. “At its core, the legislation is designed to ease the worst economic recession in generations, and combines hundreds of billions of dollars in spending to boost consumption by the public sector, along with tax cuts designed to increase consumer spending.” says the article. If Obama was Anti Federalist, he would leave the choice of stimulating the economy to the separate states.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090207/ap_on_go_co/congress_stimulus
Period 6 Civics
1.The Natural Rights Philosophy was first formed by John Locke. He believed that if you are born a human being, then you automatically have the right to life, liberty, and property, and the government is there to protect these rights. A recent event unfolded that has shown how our government will investigate when any of these rights are broken. On Friday February 6th, a doctors license was revoked. His patent, a teenager, was planning on having an abortion, gave birth to a live baby, and immediately the baby was killed when clinic staffers put it in to a plastic bag and threw it in the trash. “ A fetus born alive cannot be put to death even if its mother intended to have an abortion” says police. It is rare for a baby born at 23 weeks, such as this one, to live. However, the staff violated the natural rights philosophy when they did noting to help the baby live and put it to its death.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/florida.abortion/index.html
2.Classical Republicanism is the theory where the role of the citizen is to show civic virtue to benefit the common good, and the government and its people act on the good of the community, rather their individual interests. One example of Classical Republicanism today is how some Stop and Shops and Shop Rite pharmacy's in Connecticut are giving away free medication to the public. “All you need is a doctor's prescription, no insurance is necessary. Stop and Shop started offering the free drugs in January during the height of the cold and flu season” says the article. This shows Classical Republicanism because the stores are putting aside their want to make money, and promoting the common good by helping them to stay healthy and get medication, when they other wise couldn't afford them.
Source: http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/news_wtnh_cromwell_health_free_antibiotics_200902052330_rev1
3.President Obama's actions have shown us that he is a Federalist. According to the West's American Government textbook Federalists are “those who favor a strong central government and the new Constitution.” An example of how Obama shows that he is a Federalist, is his proposed economic stimulus plan. This plan is Federalist, because it the central government will delegate where and what the money will be put into, and it will be shared throughout the entire country. “At its core, the legislation is designed to ease the worst economic recession in generations, and combines hundreds of billions of dollars in spending to boost consumption by the public sector, along with tax cuts designed to increase consumer spending.” says the article. If Obama was Anti Federalist, he would leave the choice of stimulating the economy to the separate states.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090207/ap_on_go_co/congress_stimulus
Today's Connections to the Constitutional Actions
1. Natural Rights Philosophy, "Rights that people supposedly have under natural law. The Declaration of Independence of the United States lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as natural rights." One of that confirms that our rights are still being protected today is in the article "Parole Board Opposes Inmate's Execution." A man (Jeffery Hill) "who stabbed his mother to death in 1991 in a crack-cocaine-induced rage" was scheduled of execution on March 3. Although, his excution was opposed by his family members that he should not be put to death. "The Ohio Parole Board ruled Friday in a rare decision opposing capital punishment." By the natural rights philosophy, Jeffrey Hill's life was protected by "the board voted 8 to 0 in favor of mercy for the inmate," instead Jeffrey Hill was sentence to life in prison with parole suitability after 25 years. With the consent of his family members Jeffrey Hill's life is saved and protected.
Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/us/08ohio.html?ref=us
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural%20rights
2. On February 3, 2009, Louis D. Brandeis High School taking in "some of the city’s most disadvantaged students and has struggled year after year to bump up test scores and graduation rates" will be closed and will replaced by three new schools. Since Louis D. Brandeis High School is "a large general-curriculum institution rich in course offerings but short on personal interaction" the Department of Education is ordering them to close so that no longer, there will be personal interaction. Louis D. Brandeis High School is to be divided into three other new schools. "One to prepare students for careers in alternative energy, one for students who are at least two years behind in earning credits, and one focused on college preparation." Classical Republicanism is the "theory in which the role of the citizen is to benefit the common good through civic virtue, or their dedication to government at any cost of their individual interests." This is a contemporary event which clearly depicts Classical Republicanism by the school dividing up into three other school to increase the personal interactions, for the common good of the students.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/education/04brandeis.html?ref=education
3. Barack Obama is a Federalist. Federalism, "A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units." Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to resolve their "differences in the massive economic recovery measure and “put this plan in motion” to bring fiscal relief and new jobs to all corners of the country." Obama is empowering people and he is willing to change the nation and the world.
Sources: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/obama-calls-on-congress-to-put-stimulus-plan-in-motion/?scp=2&sq=Obama&st=cse
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/federalism
Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/us/08ohio.html?ref=us
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural%20rights
2. On February 3, 2009, Louis D. Brandeis High School taking in "some of the city’s most disadvantaged students and has struggled year after year to bump up test scores and graduation rates" will be closed and will replaced by three new schools. Since Louis D. Brandeis High School is "a large general-curriculum institution rich in course offerings but short on personal interaction" the Department of Education is ordering them to close so that no longer, there will be personal interaction. Louis D. Brandeis High School is to be divided into three other new schools. "One to prepare students for careers in alternative energy, one for students who are at least two years behind in earning credits, and one focused on college preparation." Classical Republicanism is the "theory in which the role of the citizen is to benefit the common good through civic virtue, or their dedication to government at any cost of their individual interests." This is a contemporary event which clearly depicts Classical Republicanism by the school dividing up into three other school to increase the personal interactions, for the common good of the students.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/education/04brandeis.html?ref=education
3. Barack Obama is a Federalist. Federalism, "A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units." Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to resolve their "differences in the massive economic recovery measure and “put this plan in motion” to bring fiscal relief and new jobs to all corners of the country." Obama is empowering people and he is willing to change the nation and the world.
Sources: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/obama-calls-on-congress-to-put-stimulus-plan-in-motion/?scp=2&sq=Obama&st=cse
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/federalism
Foundations of History
1.Freedom is the main concept behind the Natural Rights created by John Locke and this is what every human being deserves from the moment they are born into the world. Though it took hundreds of years to give slaves and millions of others a break from the chains, there is still one form of labor in the world which does not follow the Natural Rights; sweatshops. In China workers earn less than $2 a day while their labor may be worth up to $100 when their products are sold to companies across the world. The Chinese government does not give its citizens the chance at all three rights and they break them in many ways. Many in society have no freedom to choose where they work or how to get by in life because their only option is to do what everyone else does; in the unfair labor conditions of sweatshops. The liberty aspect of the natural rights is described as, “People want to be as free as possible from the domination of others, to be able to make their own decisions, and to live as they please.” A large amount of the working class in China and hundreds of other countries in the world are not granted this freedom that Locke believes every human should have. Many are forced as a child to work in sweatshops in unfair conditions where injury, sexual assault, and little pay are all common. Since the Chinese government does not protect the natural rights of its citizens, Locke believes that they should rebel, and many have attempted. The best example of changing the unfair way of an average Chinese citizen can be seen from the outbreak of Tiananmen Square. Though unsuccessful, it should represent how no man, women, or child can be content in a land where Locke’s Natural Rights are not granted.
Source-http://www.thestar.com/GlobalVoices/Junior/article/582116
2.Though not seen as one of the most popular presidents, George Bush used Classic Republicanism as he helped try to ease the economic dilemma facing him by tax rebates to nearly every American citizen. Bush planned to give up to $600 a person, $1200 for couples, and $300 per child and all money would be sent from the IRS when taxes were filed. As the economic crisis loomed on the forefront of Bush’s issues, he wanted to give the people money so that they could spend it and restart the economy and American business. He did not simply target the rich, or the poor under his plan, but did it for the good of the people and the desire to alter the economy for the better, though it would soon be in tatters. This plan was unsuccessful, but most likely helped boost consumer spending to a certain degree. It was not a wasted attempt and was worth the try. This rebate is a great example among many in American where Classic Republicanism was brought forth.
Source-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501399_pf.html
3.By far, Obama is a Federalist because of his plan to unify America, and make it whole again. Rather than let each state govern the affairs within, he wants to have a strong central government that controls and makes rules for all of them. His plan of National Healthcare shows this side of him as he tries to give health coverage to every individual within America. He has already completed some of this by giving coverage to kids. “As I think everybody here will agree, this is only the first step. Because the way I see it, providing coverage to 11 million children through CHIP is a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American.” The planned bill will cost around 150 billion dollars a year so that government can give everyone the care they need. This is a great example of how he is a Federalist. He also is planning to use one massive stimulus plan that he hopes can change all of America as every citizen fights through the current economic catastrophe. Rather than state rights, Obama uses the power of government to his advantage in trying to solve nearly every problem that America is currently facing. This has its advantages and disadvantages but definitely portrays a Federalist state of mind.
Source-http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/497
Source-http://www.thestar.com/GlobalVoices/Junior/article/582116
2.Though not seen as one of the most popular presidents, George Bush used Classic Republicanism as he helped try to ease the economic dilemma facing him by tax rebates to nearly every American citizen. Bush planned to give up to $600 a person, $1200 for couples, and $300 per child and all money would be sent from the IRS when taxes were filed. As the economic crisis loomed on the forefront of Bush’s issues, he wanted to give the people money so that they could spend it and restart the economy and American business. He did not simply target the rich, or the poor under his plan, but did it for the good of the people and the desire to alter the economy for the better, though it would soon be in tatters. This plan was unsuccessful, but most likely helped boost consumer spending to a certain degree. It was not a wasted attempt and was worth the try. This rebate is a great example among many in American where Classic Republicanism was brought forth.
Source-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501399_pf.html
3.By far, Obama is a Federalist because of his plan to unify America, and make it whole again. Rather than let each state govern the affairs within, he wants to have a strong central government that controls and makes rules for all of them. His plan of National Healthcare shows this side of him as he tries to give health coverage to every individual within America. He has already completed some of this by giving coverage to kids. “As I think everybody here will agree, this is only the first step. Because the way I see it, providing coverage to 11 million children through CHIP is a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American.” The planned bill will cost around 150 billion dollars a year so that government can give everyone the care they need. This is a great example of how he is a Federalist. He also is planning to use one massive stimulus plan that he hopes can change all of America as every citizen fights through the current economic catastrophe. Rather than state rights, Obama uses the power of government to his advantage in trying to solve nearly every problem that America is currently facing. This has its advantages and disadvantages but definitely portrays a Federalist state of mind.
Source-http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/497
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)