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