So is this a common politician tactic?

Unfortunatly, yes.

 

"Pork" is a long-standing problem in Washington, and the party out of power (the Democrats in the last election) always make a big deal of it and promise reform ... then when they get into power, they do it too and the party out of power (the Republicans now) complain about it.

There are a few who decry it all the time, like Sen. McCain. But most play the game.

 

Yes.

Alaskan Highway to nowhere, case in point.

(And don't tell me the Republicans don't oink with the best of them.)

I consider pork a form of extortion....."if I don't get my money I won't vote for it".

Personally, I think bills should be homogeneous; if it doesn't have anything to do with the "theme" of the bill it's dropped. You want a something for salmon fishermen? Put it in a bill about fish or ecology or enviromental renovation. I think restoring the Klamath and bringing back the salmon is very important. But it doesn't belong mixed in with the War.

If everything had to be grouped into like projects and each one had to be it's own bill, I think that might not only serve to make politicians a little more accountable, it would also shed light as to exactly what they are doing with OUR money. Their priorities would certainly be more evident.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 27 2007, 10:21 PM) [snapback]413346[/snapback]</div>

Ah yes, Ted Stevens, the King of Pork. Undoubtedly the worst Senator currently in office, which is saying a LOT.

And I'm not even talking about your standard Liberal vs. Conservative issues; pork, nepotism, attempting to kill the Internet, stealing money from victims of Hurricane Katrina for the infamous "Bridges to nowhere", the list goes on and on...

 

The reason they bundle disparate measures into a single bill is because it's the only way to assure that all their various trade-offs and compromises will be honored. I'll vote for this if you'll vote for that. But unless they put everything agreed to into a single bill, one side or the other will reneg. Or simply be unable to deliver. Or if an agreement involves two different bills, the prez signs one but not the other.

The reason salmon fishermen were in an Iraq war bill was that someone said, "I'll vote for your war if you vote for my fishermen." But if the two were not in the same bill, he knew he'd never get money for the fishermen. So they end up bundling a hundred different measures into one bill.

Pork is a separate issue. Without pork they would not get elected, and the bottom line for any politician is getting elected. The founding fathers envisioned a legislature made up of wealthy land-owning citizens, who would serve for the benefit of the ruling class, and then return to private life. Now we have career politicians, bought and paid for by corporations. Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 28 2007, 12:38 AM) [snapback]413387[/snapback]</div>

That's why it has to change.

Politicians need to be the public servants they once were, there needs to be a return to the original "noblesse oblige" (nobel obligation) of carrying for those less fortunate.

The career politician in the pockets of the big contributors needs to go. There needs to be a return of integrity.

Making them vote on a bazillion small homogeneous grouped bills would make it clear who is serving the people and who is looking out for number 1.

If they can't trust each other unless all of this extraneous cr@p is all lumped together then perhaps they need to address the logs in their own eyes before they start trying to remove the splinters from the eyes of the rest of the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 27 2007, 11:08 PM) [snapback]413406[/snapback]</div>

It ain't gonna change, unless people make it change. The details change, but the main point remains the same: This country has been run by the rich, for the rich since its inception. And since most of the people hate each other (and have from the beginning) and are thoroughly brainwashed in the belief that this is a democracy and that their own splinter group is the only one that really wants what's best fo the country while everyone else wants to give the country to our enemies, getting them together for a unified effort at positive change is a very difficult matter.

The folks in charge, through the mass media, have very effectively divided us up into small groups: roughly one quarter of the population gives some level of support to each of the two big parties, either enthusiastically or reluctantly, while the other half is divided among a large number of differing outlooks (Green, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, Fascist, frustrated, apathetic, individual, or alternative religions such as "Natural Law" or Moonie, etc.).

Thus, while the power structure is relatively united, competing within certain defined limits, but agreeing on how the country should be run, the population is so splintered that any attempt to unite the voters becomes simply one more splinter group. The Let's All Get Together And Dump The Bastards Party finds that every one of the alternative parties says, "That's what we want to do, so instead of forming one more party, you should join ours." And There's no way for the voters to decide which to support, and as soon as you talk platforms, you run up against the voters' opinions, which prevent them from agreeing.

Get enough people together and you can move mountains. But how to get people together is a problem I have no answers for.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 27 2007, 11:40 PM) [snapback]413334[/snapback]</div>

the pork in this package was necessary because pelosi could NOT get enough votes for this bill without bribing her own dems!

this is most disgusting because it directly affects our soldiers in harms way - like the war or not - OUR SOLDIERS WELL BEING SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS A POLITICAL TOOL! the dems should be embarresed - but they are not.

bush should veto this and let the dems stew - the dems are in control of the congress - its their responsbility to do what they promised to do - but that was last month....

 

Simmer down Dr. B.
This bill will in no way end the war.
There is a loophole saying the troops will stay put, IF terrorism is still present in Iraq.
Real big IF, huh?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 28 2007, 08:55 AM) [snapback]413533[/snapback]</div>

And why are those soldiers in harm's way? Because Bush and Cheney and Halliburton et. al. decided to use them as a political tool, to boost Bush's popularity; to make money for Cheney and Halliburton; to influence the political situation in the Middle East and attempt to gain control of the country's oil; to settle old debts over a personal grudge; to prevent Iraq from denominating its oil prices in euros instead of dollars; etc., etc., etc.

This whole war is political. There were no WMDs after the end of the first Gulf war. Hussein was at that point no threat to anyone. Hussein hated the Islamic fundamentalists and they hated him (beause Iraq was a secular state, and Hussein wanted to keep it that way). As nasty as Hussein was, he was no worse than many of America's "friends." But he had turned against America's political "interests" in the region. It was all politics, and the American soldiers dying and being maimed in Iraq are POLITICAL TOOLS (your words and emphasis) of the shrub and his cromies.

 

Most of the add-ons are for responsible expenditures.
Katrina relief,port security,Avian flu preparedness,heating for the poor,$3.5 billion for medical care for veterans and active duty troops.
It seems that those who would benefit are mainly small business or workers.Farmers ,fishermen ,and loggers.Those which have been adversely affected by circumstances , are downtrodden, and have obviously been neglected by the Republicans.
The Dems shouldnt need to use legislative tactics in order to pass measures which help poor and working Americans.They shouldnt need legislative tactics to protect the country from a major disaster caused by unsecured ports or a possible flu epidemic.
The Republicans throw away $500 billion+++ on a useless war,and complain about $20 billion to help Americans.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 28 2007, 10:55 AM) [snapback]413533[/snapback]</div>

You mean that the Republicans are not using the troops "well being" as a political tool?
Bush put them in harms way .People who only enlisted for college funding and who never ever expected to see any action in any war.
Bush used fraudulent means to get us into war and now he hides behind the troop's "well being" in order to continue it.This is from a draft dodger and deserter who once used the Nat Guard as a shield to protect his own personal "well being" from harms way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Mar 28 2007, 04:37 PM) [snapback]413837[/snapback]</div>

Almost all of congress voted for this war and you're blaming it on one person.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Mar 29 2007, 04:03 PM) [snapback]414447[/snapback]</div>

If I recall my U.S. Government class, Congress can declare war and holds the purse strings but the Commander in Chief directs where the troops go. He didn't need to send them anywhere.

And do you really think Congress would have declared war if the President said no? And used the power of veto to firmly press home his point?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 29 2007, 06:40 PM) [snapback]414600[/snapback]</div>

mojo said:

Yet congress saw the same information he did and came to the same conclusion. Even a certain Democrat running for congress saw this information and voted for invading Iraq. I'll agree that the war has been poorly fought, but if there was fraud getting us into the war, congress is in on it too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 28 2007, 12:35 AM) [snapback]413382[/snapback]</div>

Pish, Stevens is a johnny-come-lately. Now Byrd is the real King of Pork, or perhaps the Emperor Palpitine of Pork, and he's a racist to boot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Mar 29 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]414683[/snapback]</div>

You're saying it's the fault of Congress even though the information they were given was false. You can't hold any of Congress accountable because the information they were provided was a lie. However you can hold Bush accountable because he knew the information was false and not only did nothing, he encouraged the lie.

I'm saying that ultimately it's Bush's fault. Congress can declare war but he moves the troops.

If Congress had said no he could have sent the troops to Iraq anyway, without declaration of war and without money.

If Congress had said yes he could have refused to deploy troops anywhere.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Mar 30 2007, 12:16 AM) [snapback]414693[/snapback]</div>

Love your source.

"Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a prominent taxpayer watchdog group in the USA. Its stated goal is "to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in the federal government."[1] The group, which declares itself as a "non-partisan, non-profit organization," has been accused of fronting lobbying efforts of corporations to make them appear "grassroots."[2]"

"According to the St. Petersburg Times however, the Pig Book has been used to benefit corporate donors, specifically health clubs who donated to CAGW. The Pig Book listed federal grants to YMCAs who compete with those health clubs as waste. CAGW's president countered that "The Ys are there because they qualify as pork. Period."[2]"

"The Los Angeles Times reported that at least two dead people sent in a form letter by CAGW to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. According to the Times, family members crossed out the names on the form letters and signed for them. This brought about the "Microsoft Supported by Dead People" controversy[6] from Microsoft's and CAGW's opponents and the CAGW's response that they were not tied to Microsoft or to ATL[7]."

"Throughout its history CAGW has been charged with being a front group for a multitude of interests from both the right and left sides of the political isles. This occurs because CAGW is funded by the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, Merrill-Lynch, Phillip Morris, and Exxon-Mobil. The Washington Post is also reporting that they may be linked to the Abramoff scandal[14]."

Citizens Against Government Waste

"Porkbusters is an effort led by mostly conservative and libertarian bloggers to cut pork barrel spending by the U.S. Congress in order to help pay for Hurricane Katrina recovery projects."
(Funny they would be against this bill since it provides for Hurricane Katrina recovery projects.)

Porkbusters

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 29 2007, 10:26 PM) [snapback]414697[/snapback]</div>

How do you know that Bush knew the information was wrong?