Reason.com
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|5.15.06 @ 10:20AM|#
"And because the President?especially President Bush?will usually sign emergency bills without blinking at their cost"
Bring back Grover Cleveland, damn it!
|5.15.06 @ 10:31AM|#
The Top 100 Things I'd Do if I Ever Became a Libertarian President" Redux:
#53: I'd veto virtually every bill. My desk in the oval office would have a sign over it that would say, "The Bill Stops Here". I'd also wear a special tricorne vetoing hat.
|5.15.06 @ 10:38AM|#
Anyone want to put odds on this actually happening?
Dave W.|5.15.06 @ 10:51AM|#
If we weren't in the Iraq War, this technique wouldn't be so much of a problem.
Just another reason we shouldn't be in the Iraq War. Weird how the article author thinks the only porky part is the US-based spending. Because the war is unneeded, its *all* pork.
|5.15.06 @ 11:13AM|#
Exactly Dave. In fact - the military is the number one wasteful pork cash vacuum in the gov't. And, not surprisingly, the scumbag cowards that "suport" the war don't even pay fgor it. They borrow the money for the war from sucg places as China so that our children can pay plus interest. On top of that, the annual deficitis have been roughly the equivilant of the cost of the war!
JMJ
MP|5.15.06 @ 11:29AM|#
Dave,
Please don't become one who twists words to fit your own worldview. "Pork" has a specific connotation, for which a clear defintion can be found in this Citizen's Against Government Waste report. To quote:
"The pork label is not a subjective judgment of a project's merit. Rather, it refers to lapses in
the procedures erected by Congress to review and consider the wise expenditure of taxpayer
dollars."
Although I agree that Iraq was unnecessary and grossly expensive, it was not pork.
|5.15.06 @ 11:35AM|#
MP, of course the Iraq war is pork! Think of the local interests in it - think of the bidless private contracting (re: profiteering) - the Iraq war is pork spending for districts with MIC sectors.
JMJ
|5.15.06 @ 11:41AM|#
JMJ,
For the war to be pork, the reason for going to war would have to have been so that companies can win non-competitive bids. As much as I distrust govt motive in general, I'm fairly certain that the cart did not come before the horse.
MP|5.15.06 @ 11:45AM|#
the Iraq war is pork spending for districts with MIC sectors.
The war itself is not pork. Specific expenditures done in the name of the war can be classified as pork, but the entire war effort is not pork. Otherwise, Jersey, you could simply write off any policy of the government as pork, since it all involves local spending somewhere, thus registering the word pork meaningless.
Words matter. But it shouldn't surprise me that your typical progressive is perfectly willing to twist words to fit their own desires (a la the progressive rewrite of the Constitution).
|5.15.06 @ 12:15PM|#
MP:
Add this to your reading list on pork..
http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
Dave W.|5.15.06 @ 12:15PM|#
"The pork label is not a subjective judgment of a project's merit. Rather, it refers to lapses in
the procedures erected by Congress to review and consider the wise expenditure of taxpayer
dollars."
I think this whole emergency exception is a big, fat lapse in procedure.
I also think the argument where the soldiers get deployed first, but can't get their body armor or rations if a spending bill is held up is blackmail using the combat troopz as hostages. This don't-throw-the-troops-in-the briarpatch game is pretty evil. We could quibble about whether it counts as a "lapse" I guess.
Anyway, nothing in MP's definition of pork excludes either military expenditures or expenditures made on foreign soil, even though MP seems to think it does.
MP|5.15.06 @ 12:23PM|#
MSM,
I don't need convincing that the GOP's economic policies suck. That doesn't make every stupid thing that they do pork.
Dave,
The definition is more fully expounded in the link provided. In any event, any particular expenditure can be classified as pork, but classifying all expenditures enacted under the umbrella of a specific policy initiative as pork is improper. The B-2 bomber may be pork, but the Air Force is not.
Dave W.|5.15.06 @ 12:23PM|#
If we really thought there were WMDs in Iraq (the stated justification for the war), then the war would not have been pork.
However, Congress didn't do enough procedures to convince itself of this fact b4 giving Bush carte blanche. It is this procedural lapse that has lead to huge and unwise expenditures.
That stuff enumerated in the article is trivia compared to the expenditures occasioned by the basic procedural lapse that got this money train a-rollin' in the first place.
Dave W.|5.15.06 @ 12:25PM|#
the Air Force is not
where were they when we really could have used them?
|5.15.06 @ 9:22PM|#
Assuming Dave is referring to 9/11, all that can be said is that it must take a special person to say something so ignorant of the realities of communication, reaction time, and the laws of physics.