The Pig List - Congressional Porkers Named

[Steely Dan]

Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, requested the most money, $892.2 million, according to the group.

 

In a statement to CNN, Cochran said he doesn't "accept the premise" of the group's claim that "any and all federal spending not specifically requested by the Executive Branch is wasteful and irresponsible."

 

"The Congress is vested with the power to appropriate funds to be spent by the federal government by the U. S. Constitution. We will continue to carry out that responsibility with care and a commitment to serve the public interest," he said.

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________

______

 

 

"There were several candidates for the Narcissist Award," Tom Schatz, the president of the group said. Read the group's 2008 report

 

"But this one went to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel for the Charles Rangel Public Service Center at the City College of New York -- $1,950,000 (to a project) that he named after himself."

 

Rangel, a Democrat from New York, said last summer he was "honored that City College chose to have my name attached to what is an important project, not just for the residents of my congressional district, but for New York City and this nation."

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

The Democrats were behind 5,199 projects worth $5.5 billion, while the Republicans earmarked 3,408 projects worth $4.4 billion, the citizen's group said.

 

And in a sign bipartisanship is not dead, the two parties jointly backed 2,518 projects worth $3.8 billion.

 

 

 

 

Linkage

[KD in CA]

The Democrats were behind 5,199 projects worth $5.5 billion, while the Republicans earmarked 3,408 projects worth $4.4 billion, the citizen's group said.

Thanks for cleaning things up Nancy.

 

 

"Sen. (Barack) Obama had 53 earmarks worth $97 million dollars, and Sen. (Hillary) Clinton had 281 earmarks worth $296 million. Sen. Obama recently said he would not request any project for this upcoming fiscal year," said Tom Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

 

"And of course Sen. (John) McCain has never requested them and he won't be doing so in 2009. So now the question is if Sen. Clinton will join the other major candidates in saying that she will not request any earmarks for 2009."

Things to consider.

[Steely Dan]

What's interesting is that McCain has managed to get re-elected without requesting them. Everybody is against pork spending, except in their community.

 

Also, the Republicans were a lot worse than the Dems when they controlled the houses. Everybody has their hands out.

 

At least no Dem has requested anything close to the funding for the bridge to nowhere that Ted Stevens supported so much he refused to let any of the money go to hurricane Katrina cleanup.

 

You can say both parties are to blame but really it's the taxpayers who are to blame. As I stated above everybody is against pork until it comes to their communities. Rochester is seeking state funding to help them demolish Midtown Plaza and if they couldn't do it people would be pissed. We got money for Frontier Field and Paetc Park. While that is all state pork the same principals apply.

 

Every state puts their hands out and the re-electability of a Congressman or Senator depends on their ability to get their communities the bacon. I wonder how many people in Alaska were against the bridge to nowhere? Pork, in some instances, brings jobs to the area and so the locals love it. It's just everybody else who gets pissed about funding it for them.

[John Adams]

Also, the Republicans were a lot worse than the Dems when they controlled the houses. Everybody has their hands out.

 

You said it brother: see below.

 

Citizens Against Government Waste identified 2,658 of the FY08 earmarks representing $13.2 billion as "Pork Projects", significantly lower than the numbers and dollar amounts of recent prior years: 13,997 "Pork Projects" for a total of $27.3 billion in 2005, and 9,963 projects for a total of $29 billion in 2006.

[GG]

At least no Dem has requested anything close to the funding for the bridge to nowhere that Ted Stevens supported so much he refused to let any of the money go to hurricane Katrina cleanup.

 

Are you stating this as a known fact, or because you haven't read contrary evidence in a newspaper?

[Steely Dan]

Are you stating this as a known fact, or because you haven't read contrary evidence in a newspaper?

 

I misspoke. I meant no Dem has requested that much money for such a stupid reason. IIRC, only approx. 60 people live on that island.

[Alaska Darin]

I misspoke. I meant no Dem has requested that much money for such a stupid reason. IIRC, only approx. 60 people live on that island.

Way to eat up the media hype.

 

First, there were 2 bridges. One was between Anchorage and the MatSu Valley. Anchorage is basically landlocked by mountains on the North and Cook Inlet to the South. There is ONE road in and out of town to both the East and West. That bridge would have opened up millions of acres to development and cut travel time to the valley by half, and actually make housing affordable here (Not much room in Alaska's biggest city left to develop, so now old neighborhoods that were affordable are now being bought up, torn down, and rebuilt with half million dollar plus houses).

 

It also would have made the Seward Highway (a very dangerous road in the winter) significantly safer by cutting its traffic load by about 40%. The problem is how expensive the bridge is going to end up being because of the incredible tide swings of the inlet. I'm pretty sure the money for that bridge was only about a fifth of the cost. I'm sure it would have been the most expensive bridge in US history.

 

The second bridge was between Ketchikan and Gravina. It would have replaced a ferry system that services HALF A MILLION people a year. Yes, Gravina has a small population but the SECOND LARGEST AIRPORT in Southeast Alaska is on that island (200,000+ passengers annually). The problem with that bridge is it has to be very tall because of the hundreds of cruise ships that traverse that passage each year, making it way more expensive.

 

The Golden Gate Bridge was a "Bridge to Nowhere" when it was built. Development follows infrastructure, not vice versa and the Federal Government has not lived up to the infrastructure promises it made to the state when the statehood deal was made. Of course, Ted Stevens has gotten the Fed to waste a ton of money on a bunch of other unneeded crap up here, so that's probably his penance.

 

Now, I'm not arguing that either of these bridges should have been funded at that time or even that they should ever be. Only the repetition of the tired phrase based on typical media bull sh--.

[Steely Dan]

Way to eat up the media hype.

 

First, there were 2 bridges. One was between Anchorage and the MatSu Valley. Anchorage is basically landlocked by mountains on the North and Cook Inlet to the South. There is ONE road in and out of town to both the East and West. That bridge would have opened up millions of acres to development and cut travel time to the valley by half, and actually make housing affordable here (Not much room in Alaska's biggest city left to develop, so now old neighborhoods that were affordable are now being bought up, torn down, and rebuilt with half million dollar plus houses).

 

It also would have made the Seward Highway (a very dangerous road in the winter) significantly safer by cutting its traffic load by about 40%. The problem is how expensive the bridge is going to end up being because of the incredible tide swings of the inlet. I'm pretty sure the money for that bridge was only about a fifth of the cost. I'm sure it would have been the most expensive bridge in US history.

 

The second bridge was between Ketchikan and Gravina. It would have replaced a ferry system that services HALF A MILLION people a year. Yes, Gravina has a small population but the SECOND LARGEST AIRPORT in Southeast Alaska is on that island (200,000+ passengers annually). The problem with that bridge is it has to be very tall because of the hundreds of cruise ships that traverse that passage each year, making it way more expensive.

 

The Golden Gate Bridge was a "Bridge to Nowhere" when it was built. Development follows infrastructure, not vice versa and the Federal Government has not lived up to the infrastructure promises it made to the state when the statehood deal was made. Of course, Ted Stevens has gotten the Fed to waste a ton of money on a bunch of other unneeded crap up here, so that's probably his penance.

 

Now, I'm not arguing that either of these bridges should have been funded at that time or even that they should ever be. Only the repetition of the tired phrase based on typical media bull sh--.

 

Makes more sense but I agree the most expensive bridge ever isn't warranted. If they could have done it cheaper I don't think a lot of people against it now would be against it in the future.

[bills_fan]

Way to eat up the media hype.

 

First, there were 2 bridges. One was between Anchorage and the MatSu Valley. Anchorage is basically landlocked by mountains on the North and Cook Inlet to the South. There is ONE road in and out of town to both the East and West. That bridge would have opened up millions of acres to development and cut travel time to the valley by half, and actually make housing affordable here (Not much room in Alaska's biggest city left to develop, so now old neighborhoods that were affordable are now being bought up, torn down, and rebuilt with half million dollar plus houses).

 

It also would have made the Seward Highway (a very dangerous road in the winter) significantly safer by cutting its traffic load by about 40%. The problem is how expensive the bridge is going to end up being because of the incredible tide swings of the inlet. I'm pretty sure the money for that bridge was only about a fifth of the cost. I'm sure it would have been the most expensive bridge in US history.

 

The second bridge was between Ketchikan and Gravina. It would have replaced a ferry system that services HALF A MILLION people a year. Yes, Gravina has a small population but the SECOND LARGEST AIRPORT in Southeast Alaska is on that island (200,000+ passengers annually). The problem with that bridge is it has to be very tall because of the hundreds of cruise ships that traverse that passage each year, making it way more expensive.

 

The Golden Gate Bridge was a "Bridge to Nowhere" when it was built. Development follows infrastructure, not vice versa and the Federal Government has not lived up to the infrastructure promises it made to the state when the statehood deal was made. Of course, Ted Stevens has gotten the Fed to waste a ton of money on a bunch of other unneeded crap up here, so that's probably his penance.

 

Now, I'm not arguing that either of these bridges should have been funded at that time or even that they should ever be. Only the repetition of the tired phrase based on typical media bull sh--.

 

 

Based upon your description, the Anchorage-MatSu Valley Bridge makes a lot of sense. The other bridge, not so much. Is the ferry system that inefficient?

[blzrul]

Way to eat up the media hype.

 

First, there were 2 bridges. One was between Anchorage and the MatSu Valley. Anchorage is basically landlocked by mountains on the North and Cook Inlet to the South. There is ONE road in and out of town to both the East and West. That bridge would have opened up millions of acres to development and cut travel time to the valley by half, and actually make housing affordable here (Not much room in Alaska's biggest city left to develop, so now old neighborhoods that were affordable are now being bought up, torn down, and rebuilt with half million dollar plus houses).

 

It also would have made the Seward Highway (a very dangerous road in the winter) significantly safer by cutting its traffic load by about 40%. The problem is how expensive the bridge is going to end up being because of the incredible tide swings of the inlet. I'm pretty sure the money for that bridge was only about a fifth of the cost. I'm sure it would have been the most expensive bridge in US history.

 

The second bridge was between Ketchikan and Gravina. It would have replaced a ferry system that services HALF A MILLION people a year. Yes, Gravina has a small population but the SECOND LARGEST AIRPORT in Southeast Alaska is on that island (200,000+ passengers annually). The problem with that bridge is it has to be very tall because of the hundreds of cruise ships that traverse that passage each year, making it way more expensive.

 

The Golden Gate Bridge was a "Bridge to Nowhere" when it was built. Development follows infrastructure, not vice versa and the Federal Government has not lived up to the infrastructure promises it made to the state when the statehood deal was made. Of course, Ted Stevens has gotten the Fed to waste a ton of money on a bunch of other unneeded crap up here, so that's probably his penance.

 

Now, I'm not arguing that either of these bridges should have been funded at that time or even that they should ever be. Only the repetition of the tired phrase based on typical media bull sh--.

And if YOU didn't live in Alaska you'd be deriding the people who opted to live in those locations as freaking morons and wouldn't have spent any time trying to "enlighten people". I can't help but thinking of Sam Kinnison when he was talking about the starvation in Africa - a little simplistic but he kept screaming that until people 'MOVED TO WHERE THE FOOD IS" they would continue to die. If people knowingly opt to live in out-of-the-way places, it's probably because they're out-of-the-way. Once they get there and realized they've !@#$ed up, they should MOVE and not expect the rest of us to foot the bill for THEIR mistake.

 

And don't tell me building these bridges is going to turn Alaska into the Bay Area, because that is even more reason NOT to do that. Alaska's beauty and wilderness is its attraction. Bring in enough people to despoil and "tame" the area and you've got just another place with bad weather. You could stay in Buffalo for THAT.

[Alaska Darin]

And if YOU didn't live in Alaska you'd be deriding the people who opted to live in those locations as freaking morons and wouldn't have spent any time trying to "enlighten people". I can't help but thinking of Sam Kinnison when he was talking about the starvation in Africa - a little simplistic but he kept screaming that until people 'MOVED TO WHERE THE FOOD IS" they would continue to die. If people knowingly opt to live in out-of-the-way places, it's probably because they're out-of-the-way. Once they get there and realized they've !@#$ed up, they should MOVE and not expect the rest of us to foot the bill for THEIR mistake.

WTF does any of that mean? Anchorage is a vibrant, growing city that is a major transportation hub. Aircraft that leave our airport can reach any destination in the world in 12 hours. It has nothing to do with moving where the food is. There's plenty of food and jobs here.

 

Once again, you'll note that I didn't state support for either bridge - especially at the projected costs. I simply stated that development follows infrastructure and the U.S. government hasn't delivered on the promises to enhance Alaska's infrastructure.

 

And don't tell me building these bridges is going to turn Alaska into the Bay Area, because that is even more reason NOT to do that. Alaska's beauty and wilderness is its attraction. Bring in enough people to despoil and "tame" the area and you've got just another place with bad weather. You could stay in Buffalo for THAT.

Yeah, because a city the size of San Francisco in a state that covers over half the surface area of the contiguous U.S. would absolutely ruin everything else great about Alaska.

[Booster4324]

WTF does any of that mean?

 

I could be wrong, but I get the feeling she was calling you a sanctimonious ass who would be arguing the sheer opposite viewpoint for perversities sake. What do I know though?

[/dev/null]

I could be wrong, but I get the feeling she was calling you a sanctimonious ass who would be arguing the sheer opposite viewpoint for perversities sake. What do I know though?

I bet you get a ton of points for using that word in Scrabble

[Booster4324]

I bet you get a ton of points for using that word in Scrabble

 

It would be a B word since you only get 7 tiles and hard to find a word to build off of.

[Steely Dan]

Soft Earmarks

 

But soft earmarks, while not a new phenomenon, have drawn virtually no attention and were not included in the ethics changes — and current ones under consideration — because Congress does not view them as true earmarks.

 

Their total cost is not known. But the research service found that they amounted to more than $3 billion in one spending bill alone in 2006, out of 13 annual appropriations bills. And the committee that handles the bill, which involves foreign operations, has increasingly converted hard earmarks to soft ones.

 

“This shows that even though lawmakers now have to disclose their pet projects, we’re not getting a full accounting of earmarks,” said Ryan Alexander, director of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group in Washington that tracks earmarks. “We may just be looking at the tip of the iceberg.”

[swede316]

If people knowingly opt to live in out-of-the-way places, it's probably because they're out-of-the-way. Once they get there and realized they've !@#$ed up, they should MOVE and not expect the rest of us to foot the bill for THEIR mistake.

So, what you are trying to say is we all should live in New York City or LA? They're not asking us to pay for them to move, they want a bridge. I don't see anything wrong with trying to improve one's city. Should Buffalo not attempt to build a better Peace Bridge, Bass Pro Shop, Casino, or anything else that might create a job or two (political ineptness to get anything done aside)?

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

And if YOU didn't live in Alaska you'd be deriding the people who opted to live in those locations as freaking morons and wouldn't have spent any time trying to "enlighten people". I can't help but thinking of Sam Kinnison when he was talking about the starvation in Africa - a little simplistic but he kept screaming that until people 'MOVED TO WHERE THE FOOD IS" they would continue to die. If people knowingly opt to live in out-of-the-way places, it's probably because they're out-of-the-way. Once they get there and realized they've !@#$ed up, they should MOVE and not expect the rest of us to foot the bill for THEIR mistake.

 

And don't tell me building these bridges is going to turn Alaska into the Bay Area, because that is even more reason NOT to do that. Alaska's beauty and wilderness is its attraction. Bring in enough people to despoil and "tame" the area and you've got just another place with bad weather. You could stay in Buffalo for THAT.

 

Assuming that this logic is true, we should immediately ban any federal money from going to Buffalo and WNY since their inefficient government and political system is resulting in job loss and a shrinking economy.