Congress is profiterring on the war,

[Guest snuffbox]

---this is a Libertarian party press release---

 

WASHINGTON, DC -- The bill funding the war in Iraq has become jam-packed with so many special-interest favors -- such as a $250 million grant for Southern catfish farmers -- that Congress should be ashamed to vote for it, the Libertarian Party says.

 

"Unfortunately, wartime looting isn't confined to Iraq," said Geoffrey Neale, the party's national chairman. "Politicians in Washington, DC, are using the fog of late-night legislating to cover their tracks as they funnel money to their political supporters."

 

As a House-Senate conference committee negotiates the final details of legislation funding the Iraq war, Democrats and Republicans are scrambling to insert dozens of special-interest riders. Though the $80 billion package was stalled by disagreements on Wednesday, it is expected to be completed within days and presented to President Bush.

 

According to an estimate by Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, the bill contains $20 billion in "wartime pork," or spending that has no connection with the war in Iraq or the battle against terrorism.

 

"By turning the bill into a spigot for special interests, Congress is profiteering on the war -- and that should anger every American," Neale said.

 

One especially egregious example: Republican Sen. Thad Cochran inserted language that would funnel $250 million to Southern catfish farmers, many of them in his home state of Mississippi, under the guise of providing drought relief for livestock producers.

 

Other "war-time pork" includes:

 

* $69 million to fund a "Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust," named after the former Missouri Congressman.

 

* A measure intended to prevent a German company, DHL Worldwide Express, from competing with Federal Express and United Parcel Service in the delivery of military cargo. During the 2002 election cycle, UPS gave $1.5 million to Democratic and Republican candidates and $300,000 to the Republican National Committee, Neale noted.

 

* $98 million for an agricultural research lab in Iowa, and $250 million in other Agriculture Department grants.

 

* $3.2 billion to extend unemployment benefits for airline employees.

 

* $11 million for Congressional salaries and expenses.

 

* A total of $12.4 million for the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

 

* $8 billion in foreign aid for nations that are supposedly helping the fight against terrorism, including Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Djibouti.

 

"It's disgraceful that politicians who publicly brag about supporting our troops are privately using this war as a device to enrich special interests and benefit their own re-election campaigns," Neale said.

 

"The Libertarian Party is challenging Mr. Bush to veto this bill. Maybe that will send a message to the politicians who insist on conducting business as usual in Washington, DC -- while their fellow Americans are dying in Iraq."

[Guest EricMM]

I mean I can't comment on most of these since I don't know much about how much money southern farmers need for catfish raising. Maybe these are measures that wouldn't have passed if not included on this bill, but maybe not. Honestly, I don't know. I mean agricultural research grants have to go to SOME state (if they have to go to a state at all of course.)

 

I mean are you saying that this money didn't need to be spent or that it shouldn't have gone under an Iraq spending bill?

 

I agree that perhaps they should have had their own bills for Congress monies.

 

I think the 8 billion was just the cost of using foreign soil, and nothing more. Everyone has their price, and that's just the way world politics go, especially when America is involved. Everyone wants dollars.

[Guest NoCalMike]

that is what you call taking advantage of the people's will. Congress knows that right now the people are gonna support/trust ANYTHING that has "war" attached to it, so they just throw in other things unbeknownst to the general public. It was just like right after sept. 11th, the administration knew they had the support of 99% of the american people so they ignorantly tried to push hard on the war on drugs thinking no one would EVER second guess ANY part of their agenda since they considered the general public a deer caught in the headlights ready for someone to push them out of the way.

[Guest EricMM]

But do you think that this spending should not have been spent?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Pork happens. If we want to fix our country's budgets and whatnot, we need to cut it out.

[Guest snuffbox]

But do you think that this spending should not have been spent?

No, it shouldnt have been spent here.

 

The bill is for the Iraq war and American taxpayers are, for the most part, supportive of that. There isnt the same opinion for these additions, and its only deceptive that they be secreted in like this. 'Wartime pork.' Not very democratic.

[Guest DrTom]

While I'm sure some of those things were necessary and would have been funded anyway, tacking them onto war bills is the height of insensitivity. It's stupid things like this that make people feel like the government is out of touch and just concerned with its own agenda instead of the will of the people.

 

Pork needs to go. I propose the Robert Byrd Pork Barrel Elimination Bill.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Eliminating his fat bloated ass would save millions in time alone. Billions, if you include construction and material costs, plus all the aspirin and alcohol I use as a result of the headaches and general irritation caused by having to listen to his incessant, self-indulgent, and profoundly ignorant bullshit.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I think the federal goverment could stand to streamline a bit. I'm not talking about the old Conservative policies before. Removing the Dept. of Education will not help anything. I'm talking about a restructuring of the goverment so that it can operate at maximum effeciency in the 21st Century.

 

What better way to prove that democracy works than to continually improve upon it and try to get the best country we can?

[Guest EricMM]

Any ideas HOW to streamline?

 

I mean almost everyone is for a more efficent government. Pork barreling is a total waste of money overall, and I don't think anyone is in favor of it, except those who profit from it.

 

But how do you make Americans aware of everything that goes in congress? There's hundreds of millions of us, and I don't think very many of us watch C-Span...

 

That's why we're in a representative government anyways, to increase efficency, but if every single congressperson is porkbarreling (is that a word) where do we begin stopping them?

 

I remember Tom said something about limiting terms, that would help because then corrupt people wouldn't stay in power so long?

 

How much change happens when one congressperson is replaced by another even if they're from the same party? I mean if a congressperson is corrupt, would they influence their successor to be corrupt as well?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Robert Byrd Pork Barrel"

 

A redundancy if there ever was one...

[Guest snuffbox]

If anybody wants a link...

 

Libertarian Party

[Guest NoCalMike]

The problem with this pork barreling is that if someone comes out against this bill because of the other things the money is being spent on, it gets spun around so they get targeted for coming out against the war time relief money, when that couldn't be furtherst from the truth. If the bill is a war time relief fund then that is what should be addressed, nothing about farmers or airline workers. Those should be discussed and decided on in their OWN bill not the War Fund bill.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Any ideas HOW to streamline?

 

I mean almost everyone is for a more efficent government. Pork barreling is a total waste of money overall, and I don't think anyone is in favor of it, except those who profit from it.

 

But how do you make Americans aware of everything that goes in congress? There's hundreds of millions of us, and I don't think very many of us watch C-Span...

 

That's why we're in a representative government anyways, to increase efficency, but if every single congressperson is porkbarreling (is that a word) where do we begin stopping them?

 

I remember Tom said something about limiting terms, that would help because then corrupt people wouldn't stay in power so long?

 

How much change happens when one congressperson is replaced by another even if they're from the same party? I mean if a congressperson is corrupt, would they influence their successor to be corrupt as well?

Yes.

 

Reorganize govermental duties. Eliminate redundant orgainizations. Liquidate out-of-date policies. The Executive Branch could be significantly cut down. Create a new Cabinet that will be dealing with the most important economic, national, and international issues.

 

Also, I think the Goverment could stand to be run a bit more like a business. Perhaps they should invite top business advisors, along with representitves of different social groups to give advice on how to create more effective democracy.

[Guest hardyz1]

If anybody wants a link...

 

Libertarian Party

No, no, no. If you want a link...

 

*points to sig*

[Guest snuffbox]

If anybody wants a link...

 

Libertarian Party

No, no, no. If you want a link...

 

*points to sig*

Nice

[Guest DrTom]

"Robert Byrd Pork Barrel"

 

A redundancy if there ever was one...

That was precisely the point. Considering all the pork he's directed to his state, it's only appropriate that the bill to eliminate it be named after him. I would say it's an honor, but it's intended as nothing of the sort.

[Guest DrTom]

I remember Tom said something about limiting terms, that would help because then corrupt people wouldn't stay in power so long?

Indeed I have.

 

Twelve years and you're out. That's six terms for a Rep and two for a Senator. The hope is that limits will eliminate corruption and complacency. Besides, representing your state was originally looked at as a service and a privilege, not a fucking fifty-year career. Strom Thurmond was a cruel joke long before he needed a bag to pee in and Bob Dylan records to make him sound coherent. A lot of these people have law degrees -- let them go into practice. They should find their coworkers about as seedy and disreputable as the lobbyists whose money they used to line their pockets.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

While I'm sure some of those things were necessary and would have been funded anyway, tacking them onto war bills is the height of insensitivity. It's stupid things like this that make people feel like the government is out of touch and just concerned with its own agenda instead of the will of the people.

 

Pork needs to go. I propose the Robert Byrd Pork Barrel Elimination Bill.

Well, much to their credit, the GOP tried to do something about this kind of thing years ago when they gave Clinton the line-item veto (I still don't get why the Supreme Court viewed it as unconstitutional).

 

Of course, I have no doubt tha GOP'ers porked up this bill as well. Sadly, almost EVERY major bill has this kind of stuff on it. They KNOW the President CAN'T veto the bill, so they load up at the trough.

-=Mike

[Guest Galactic Gigolo]

There's hundreds of millions of us, and I don't think very many of us watch C-Span...

That's because we all know that the top quality stuff is broadcast on C-Span 2.

 

I'm a Libertarian, and that shit they're pulling is typical. And people wonder why our taxes keep going higher, our debt keeps getting larger, etc.

[Guest EricMM]

But is giving a couple hundred thousand to a district to improve schools really pork? I think that one of the conditions is if it's nominated by only one person and such. And if it is pork, can it still be acceptable?

 

I got most of this from www.CAGW.org

[Guest DrTom]

Well, much to their credit, the GOP tried to do something about this kind of thing years ago when they gave Clinton the line-item veto (I still don't get why the Supreme Court viewed it as unconstitutional).

As much as I like the idea of the line-item veto, it IS unconstitutional. It allows the President to exceed the powers defined and intended for the Executive Branch. By using the line-item veto on a bill brought to him from Congress, a President is basically changing it around and making his own legislation. Those are powers he was never intended to have. I'm all for the elimination of pork, but we'll have to find another way to go about it.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Well, much to their credit, the GOP tried to do something about this kind of thing years ago when they gave Clinton the line-item veto (I still don't get why the Supreme Court viewed it as unconstitutional).

As much as I like the idea of the line-item veto, it IS unconstitutional. It allows the President to exceed the powers defined and intended for the Executive Branch. By using the line-item veto on a bill brought to him from Congress, a President is basically changing it around and making his own legislation. Those are powers he was never intended to have. I'm all for the elimination of pork, but we'll have to find another way to go about it.

What I'd prefer is a system where the Pres is allowed to return a bill to Congress with the "offensive portions" (i.e blatant pork spending) crossed out.

 

If Congress wishes to STILL pass the bill, let THEM explain the pork. The Pres. can say "Well, I had problems with ALL of this stuff, but I can't make them take it out".

 

Make Congress suffer a little heat.

 

And I still question why the line-item veto is unconstitutional. If it is constitutional for the Pres. to veto an entire bill, it doesn't seem unreasonable, to me, to allow him to veto part of a bill.

-=Mike --- who wonders why we studied bovine flatulence in the first place and why it cost so much money.

[Guest hardyz1]

Has there ever been a case where a rider added to a bill has been a good thing? If it's important, it should be its own bill, don't slap on something totally unrelated.

 

Riders = bad

[Guest DrTom]

What I'd prefer is a system where the Pres is allowed to return a bill to Congress with the "offensive portions" (i.e blatant pork spending) crossed out.

I'd have no problems with that, as long as it passed Constiutional muster.

 

And I still question why the line-item veto is unconstitutional. If it is constitutional for the Pres. to veto an entire bill, it doesn't seem unreasonable, to me, to allow him to veto part of a bill.

The regular veto process, though, involves the bill being sent back to Congress, as is, where the House and Senate can override the President's veto. In that case, Congress is still making the legislation. When the President uses the line-item veto to hack apart a bill on his desk before he signs it into law, then HE is the one making the legislation. It's not like pork is the only thing that can be cut -- any president with line-item veto powers could strike anything he wanted from any bill and then sign it. That exceeds the powers of the Executive Branch, which is why the Supreme Court wisely ruled it unconsitutional.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The problem, of course, is that the president is the only feasible person who can actually cut pork. Perhaps the process could be amended so that congress would then have to pass the president's altered bill (which would still make the president a legislator, but less so than before) and make the executive branch perform like an extended conference committee. To simply veto a bill which has merits -- for the pure purpose of denying congress their 'right to pork' -- is not feasible in itself. Perhaps, though, the president can use such a limited line item veto power to display his displeasure to congress without risking the political suicide which is vetoing helpful legislation.

[Guest BDC]

The line-item veto is just tricky beyond belief.

 

Then again, if it ended up in my hands, I'd cross out all the verbs in the bill and send it back.