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
Monday, March 16, 2009
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,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)