Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Pork pork pork - the 2009 State Rankings of Pork projects


The Evil Genius

Recommended Posts

Ahh, that damn liberal California caucus. Eeeevul Pelosi and Feinstein and Boxer sending all of your hardearned tax dollars out here to fund gay pride parades and illegal immigrant youth hostels and enviro-whacko pet projects!

Oh wait. Cali was 49th, just after New York? Never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wait. Cali was 49th, just after New York? Never mind.

Well, to be fair, that's per capita, not gross. Gross, California is #1 by around 200 million.

I'm not really sure per capita is a totally fair measure in this case, because I doubt even Robert Byrd could pry away an amount to make so large a state in the top half per capita.

One might argue, therefore, that the #49 ranking was not for lack of trying. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair, that's per capita, not gross. Gross, California is #1 by around 200 million.

I'm not really sure per capita is a totally fair measure in this case, because I doubt even Robert Byrd could pry away an amount to make so large a state in the top half per capita.

One might argue, therefore, that the #49 ranking was not for lack of trying. ;)

Why? If you are approaching 40 million people and 53 congressional districts, presumably you have that many more projects, roads, industries, monuments, and other constitutient demands for pork as well.

I understand somewhat why Alaska, Hawaii and DC naturally would be top of the list - those are special geographic circumstances. Other than that, per capita makes absolute sense as a measurement of pork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah... the ole 1% of the budget that gets 50% of the people so furious.... even though they aren't really concerned with the other 99% of the budget.

Because if you can't do something about the 1% that is essentially legalized corruption and done without an actual vote by Congress, then how do you expect to do anything about the other 99%.

You don't eat a whole pie w/o taking a first slice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand somewhat why Alaska, Hawaii and DC naturally would be top of the list - those are special geographic circumstances. Other than that, per capita makes absolute sense as a measurement of pork.

Of course per capita makes sense when analyzing results, but I'm not sure it makes sense to use that to make a case about the intentions of California's legislators.

Congressional distributions are not done per capita, they're done by gross amounts, and the staggering sum required to put California even in the top half per capita just wouldn't fly politically, so I'm not sure that we can use the #49 ranking to herald the fiscal restraint of California's legislators. I suspect they'd push for more if they thought they could get it (especially now, with the budget crisis in the state), but don't, because they're already so much higher in gross amounts, which is all most people look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course per capita makes sense when analyzing results, but I'm not sure it makes sense to use that to make a case about the intentions of California's legislators.

Congressional distributions are not done per capita, they're done by gross amounts, and the staggering sum required to put California even in the top half per capita just wouldn't fly politically, so I'm not sure that we can use the #49 ranking to herald the fiscal restraint of California's legislators. I suspect they'd push for more if they thought they could get it (especially now, with the budget crisis in the state), but don't, because they're already so much higher in gross amounts, which is all most people look at.

If they are done by gross amounts, then the gross amount that each California congressman is bringing home must be way low. We have 53 congressmen. 38 million people.

I'm not saying that the California legislators are saints. Just noting the irony that California often gets pegged for its big spending liberal ways...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I care about the PORK.

It is systemic of the system itself. We spend money to spend it. thats it.

An office get 90k a year, if it spend 80k it gets less next year so in Aug/Sep there is a spending spree to ensure there is nothing left over...

We don't collect on 300 billion a year for the IRS.

Outright losing 20 billion a year

The Pentagon and other agencies

Pork mixed in with bills that are too big to fail.

Private plane trips while we subsidize the public planes they wont ride in.

A cafeteria in Congress that got so little use they "GAVE IT" 1 million to stay open so that they will continue not to use it.

etc.

etc.

etc.

It does matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because if you can't do something about the 1% that is essentially legalized corruption and done without an actual vote by Congress, then how do you expect to do anything about the other 99%.

You don't eat a whole pie w/o taking a first slice.

Me agreeing with Peter is going to keep me wearing a jacket or a sweater tomorrow. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, that damn liberal California caucus. Eeeevul Pelosi and Feinstein and Boxer sending all of your hardearned tax dollars out here to fund gay pride parades and illegal immigrant youth hostels and enviro-whacko pet projects!

Oh wait. Cali was 49th, just after New York? Never mind.

I was right there with you until "oh wait".

Stoopid Californians. But I am shocked to see this. Guess only Pelosi and Feinstein and Boxer put in earmarks, enough to make it 15K for every man woman and child.

Good thing you all have the guvanator to keep you all in check.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah... the ole 1% of the budget that gets 50% of the people so furious.... even though they aren't really concerned with the other 99% of the budget.

Dude, you miss the point. It isn't the amount but what they symbolize. Congressmen vote on bills only if their pork is in it, no matter what the bill is. It's a political tool first of all, that's why it should be eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are done by gross amounts, then the gross amount that each California congressman is bringing home must be way low. We have 53 congressmen. 38 million people.

I'm not saying that the California legislators are saints. Just noting the irony that California often gets pegged for its big spending liberal ways...

California is quickly proving to be well nigh ungovernable. There are many things contributing to this situation and I don't necessarily think it's a 'liberal' issue but the Unions are going to, in fact already have, BK'ed cities (Vallejo). California also receives a disproportionately LOW amount of federal funds to address the illegal immigration issue. One thing is for sure: any sane person needs to vote down all the Propositions/Spending proposals coming up for vote in mid-May in California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because if you can't do something about the 1% that is essentially legalized corruption and done without an actual vote by Congress, then how do you expect to do anything about the other 99%.

You don't eat a whole pie w/o taking a first slice.

Well, Medicare/Medicaid make up close to a third of the Fed budget. Miltary another third. So it actually is kinda dumb to make fuss over 1% when tackling and streamlining 66% would have more of an impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...