[Jr_Bullit]

Saw this article in my local paper. As a local citizen, I have to say that if my lawmaker came back from passing or voting against bills, I'd give him a pat on the back for saying "you know, maybe we shouldn't pass a bill that includes lots of added frivolous bonuses just so I look good, our defiicit spending is a little out of control right now."

I think goodies are great, and so is money, but couldn't this "extra" money go to things that need it, like schools? If we have to go deeper into debt, perhaps the money should be applied to things that make sense to everyone, and not just some specialty group?

New spending bill stuffed with home-district goodies

By Sharon Theimer
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Despite soaring deficits, the government spending plan awaiting President Bush's signature is chock-full of special items for industries and communities. Consider $443,000 to develop salmon-fortified baby food or $350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Lawmakers from both parties who approved the $388 billion package last weekend set aside plenty of money for projects certain to sow goodwill in their home districts.

The time-honored practice flourished despite the ballooning deficit, less money for federal programs and rising unease about how government will finance the futures of Medicare and Social Security.

For instance, there was $1 million for the Norwegian American Foundation in Seattle, $50,000 to control Missouri's wild-hog problem and $4 million for the International Fertilizer Development Center in Alabama.

There's little mystery about why such spending survives in good times or bad.

"They do it because they can get away with it; they do it because it's the thing that allows them to do a good press release back home and be able to say to folks, 'I'm delivering something for you,' " said Frank Clemente, a spokesman for the private watchdog group Public Citizen.

When Bush took office, he promised to cut pet projects from the federal budget, but the president has yet to veto a spending bill. He is expected to sign the new plan.

Within hours of the bill's passage, lawmakers were promoting the projects they had brought home to constituents. In federal budgets, what is derided as pork-barrel spending by one constituency is embraced by another as well-deserved local aid.

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., sent a news release claiming credit for securing, among other things, $500,000 for the City of Shoreline Interurban Trail, $300,000 for the Edmonds Arts Center and $240,000 for the Naval Undersea Museum Science Education Alliance.

Oregon's senators, Democrat Ron Wyden and Republican Gordon Smith, put out an 11-page news release Sunday sharing credit for several hundred million dollars headed to their state. Projects the money will finance include "wood-utilization research," a barley-gene-mapping project, remodeling of a cafeteria at Crater Lake National Park and the West Coast Groundfish Observers.

Ohio Reps. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Democrat, and Steven LaTourette, a Republican, boasted about the $350,000 for music-education programs at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland.

Nicole Williams, a spokeswoman for Tubbs Jones, said another lawmaker requested the funding but Tubbs Jones supported it. With a deficit in Cleveland's public schools and music education among the programs being cut, the museum funding could benefit the whole city, Williams said.

Alaska Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens claimed credit for channeling federal money to the state's salmon industry, including the money to research use of salmon as a base for baby food.

"The goal is to increase the market for salmon by encouraging the production of more 'value-added' salmon products," Murkowski's office said in a statement.

Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who serves on the Appropriations Committee, won dozens of special items for his state.

In a release aimed at northern Alabama, Shelby took credit for $4 million budgeted for the fertilizer-development center: "In addition to the important research conducted at this facility, the facility employs numerous Muscle Shoals-area residents."

The targeted spending was so prolific that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had no problem filling a half-hour floor speech with examples, such as a plan for $1 million for the Wild American Shrimp Initiative.

"I am hoping that the appropriators could explain to me why we need $1 million for this. Are American shrimp unruly and lacking initiative? Why does the U.S. taxpayer need to fund this 'no shrimp left behind' act?" he asked his colleagues.

 

[DRB]

Why do folks always throw schools out there as the end all beat all of funding when these supposed "irresponsibilities" come up? But some of this is aimed at education initiatives or would be used in indirect/direct education.

The automatic assumption made by the author of this article is that its just "to sow goodwill in their home districts". Maybe just maybe folks should look beyond the titles and see if maybe if there is some value to what is automatically called PORK.

Take the International Fertilizer Development Center for instance.

The vision of IFDC focuses on contributing significantly to food security and economic progress by promoting sustainable agricultural development across the world through the efficient and environmentally sound management of plant nutrients in conjunction with other agricultural inputs and natural resources.

Seems much of their efforts is in teaching and sharing information on the use of fertilizers and crop techniques that are sustainable as opposed to the farm it till you kill it method.

Or salmon-fortified baby food? Lord have mercy that we implement a study that might make our children more healthy more naturally.

Wood-utilization research. That's pretty generic (thanks to the author for being vague) and impossible to determine what it might include. But how is it so bad if the study improves methods and yields on our forest resources. Or maybe we should just continue clear cutting because its cheaper and you don't have to think about it.

$50,000 for controlling wild pigs. Sounds funny but that's serious business and costs some states millions of dollars in damage to crops and livestock. Yeah a wild pig will kill sheep.

None of this is to say that some the spending initiatives included won't be a complete boondoggle but to lump it simply by a funny title that we don't understand and judge on that alone is pretty dumb.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

To clarify - I tend to always want to support public education so that's my own assumption of a less-frivolous expense, primarily because I see the pain educators go through on a daily basis in terms of books for students, hiring enough staff to actually educate their classrooms and so on.

However, additional spending when in a deficit should be looked at with a very careful eye. The levels of debt to which our government seems willing to take us is incredible - especially when the populace is not really being given a vote in the matter. I personally think that if our legislators ARE going to pass a bill then they need to justify each expense over a certain amount (and No, I'm not qualified to give you an estimate what I think that should be). We have to pay off the debt - shouldn't we get to say if that debt is acceptable?

And, harking back to a previous thread, it's already pretty apparent that our legislators are not reading what they are approving, in its entirety.

 

[Changleen]

And, harking back to a previous thread, it's already pretty apparent that our legislators are not reading what they are approving, in its entirety.

Like the Patriot Act - One of the most expensive bits of legislation - read by zero people before being signed into law!

 

[Skookum]

i think the only valid gripe here would be the amount of spending. Government always seems to find a way of pay the most amount of dough for something that probably could be done for half the price. Only problem is when you complain about it, all they do is hire and pay a committee to find cheaper ways to do it and they wind up costing more than the project does.

 

[chicodude]

A history teacher once told me that a government office gets a ceratin amount of money to spend a year, and if they spend more than that, the get more funding the next year, but if the try to cut costs, the end up getting less funding. Anyone care to clarify this for me?

 

[Toshi]

A history teacher once told me that a government office gets a ceratin amount of money to spend a year, and if they spend more than that, the get more funding the next year, but if the try to cut costs, the end up getting less funding. Anyone care to clarify this for me?

this is true, at least to some extent. if you come in under your budget your budget will be cut the next time around...