Instapundit and NZ Bear have come up with a non-partisan way for bloggers to help their states cut the fat in their budgets to fund the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

< Prison Sex Slave Trial to Begin | Defining 'Success' in Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#1)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    I wasn't surprised to see that NJ was in 51st place as far as pork goes. So we get a lousy 15 million to replenish beaches. We pay in more than any other state and we get a lousy 15 million back? NJ has way worse problems than beach erosion. Like the possibility of a chlorine plant mishap/attack that could kill millions. We apparently get zip for that.

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#2)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    aw, the list is just getting started, so I don't think the rankings mean much yet. One thing that's a bit misleading--when you add pork, it asks for "your" congressional district, as opposed to the congressional district that benefits from the pork. So in Colorado, given that internet usage is higher density in urban areas, Diana DeGette might be unfairly targeted even though the pork barrel spending might be happening in Tancredo's or Musgrave's districts.

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#3)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    Michael: I don't begrudge the Gulf States disaster funds. But it's undisputed that NJ pays the most and gets the least. We have potential problems that make Katrina look small in comparison in possible loss of life. My congressperson, Scott Garrett, stands with Karl Rove. He as much as said so in his last response to one of my letters, praising Rove and dissing Dick Durbin. I just hope IF something happens, Garrett happens to be at home, without a way out, like the rest of us.

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    In my opinion, this is a *really* bad idea. It takes one person's ideas of what "pork" is and magnifies it along with their comments. Many of the comments don't look very deeply into the issue. For instance, in Madison Wisconsin there is money for a bike/walking path. Madison is a very bike-friendly town in some respects, but there are also places where it could be friendlier. The comment at the site is that because Wisconsin is so snowy, the bike paths are a bad idea because they would only be used five months out of the year. I don't think that's a valid reason to cut funding that makes the city a better place to live in. (Same goes for the other bike/walking paths that money was set aside for in Wisconsin.) If we're all going to sacrifice something in terms of quality of life in order to pay to restore the lives of people along the Gulf coast, it damn well better be for better reasons than that. Also, since we're almost certain that the money is just going to go right into the pockets of Haliburton KRB, etc., I'd just as soon that we *didn't* start ripping up potential moneys that could be used to make life better for people in other states. If we can be assured the moneys will be spent wisely in New Orleans and the Gulf coast, then I would feel better about a "shared sacrifice". But I want the usual corporate suspects to also sacrifice equally. If we have to do without, then so should they. And I don't see that happening. Repeal the tax cuts on people and businesses making obscene amounts of money. Repeal the tax cuts on stock dividends. Repeal all the corporate welfare, and then we can start talking shared sacrifice. Love, Hanna

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    What Hanna said especially as it regards suggestions from instantlyshallowandstupid --start with the money lost in Iraq I didn't see that on crackheadboy's list In my state the best way to get rid of money poorly spent is to get rid of the governor...soon

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    ps Where was this suggestion when Glenn Reynolds was supporting the war in Iraq he is nothing but a cheap chicken hawk and this is nothing but a cheap shot from a lesser

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    Hanna's right--an awful lot of this stuff looks reasonable enough. Repairs on roads that sound like they get a lot of use. Light-rail systems in places with hellish commutes. Hospitals and health services in high-poverty areas. What I mind most about paying taxes is the sense that I'm not getting value for the money. I don't mind shelling out so people in Wisconsin can walk or bike to work with a bit more safety and a nicer view, or for better clinics on Indian reservations. I do mind it landing, unscathed by any obligations to do something for our country in return, in the pockets of whatever kleptocrat greases Joe Allbaugh's or Dick Cheney's palm.

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    Yeah, a lot of pork is useful to somebody. That's not the point. This is money which could be better spent elsewhere. Additionally, some of these are projects that could be handled at a state, local, or private level with fewer sticky fingers and fewer layers of beurocracy to reduce efficiency. And we force people to pay for a bike trail in Wisconsin, on penalty of imprisonment? Not because it's a vital good benefiting the whole country, but because it "makes the city a better place to live"?

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#9)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    If you want to see what is thought as 'pork' in the eyes of the beholders, then make some suggestions...like re-allocating the entire budgets of Fed anti-drug agencies to NOLA reconstruction, and listen for the howls of the so-called 'fiscal conservatives' and the specious arguments they'll make to defend the status quo. ("But, but, but...we can't cut that! It's for the children!" when previously they had no compuctions about cutting funds to below par performing schools thanks to 'No Child Left Behind'.)

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    How 'bout we ask all our current Congresspeople to serve the remainder of their term for no salary?

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    Roy's exactly right. The federal government has no business building bike paths in Wisconsin, unless they are on federal land. If people in Madison want a bike path, they can spend their own tax revenues building it.

    Re: PorkBusting (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Kos slices the fat off this one to reveal that there is no meat underneath.
    $233 million to connect 50 people on an island with regular ferry service to the mainland, and $231 million for a bridge that will connect Anchorage to 23 other people. "How is the bridge going to pay for itself?" asks Susan Walsh, Sallee's wife, who works as a nurse in Ketchikan. She notes that a ferry, which runs every 15 minutes in the summer, already connects Gravina to Ketchikan. "It can get us to the hospital in five minutes. How is this bridge fair to the rest of the country?" [...]