Riggo-toni Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 U.S. Senator Named "Porker of the Year" Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has been "honored" by being named Porker of the Year for 2003. The highly undesirable award is given by Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government. Award winners are chosen for outrageous misuse of tax dollars in the form of "pork" -- unjustifiable government grants for local projects awarded directly by members of Congress. Senator Specter received an appropriately porky 51 percent of the vote, outdistancing runners-up by a 2 to 1 margin. Senator Specter earned the organization's ire in October, for stuffing the fiscal 2003 Emergency Supplemental portion of the fiscal 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act with unjustifiable, non-emergency pork-barrel projects to benefit his home state. Specter compounded his pork sins by taking advantage of concern over terrorism to boost his own reelection efforts. He added language to last April's War Supplemental Appropriations bill to remove limitations on the number of mailings senators can send to their constituents. While he claimed that this was somehow vital to anti-terrorism, it was clearly a huge benefit to incumbent senators -- like him. Far from being ashamed of his award, Sen. Specter seemed actually proud. "It's really nice to be able to help the home town," he said. Especially, one presumes, with other people's money. Pork barrel spending has become epidemic in Washington. Last year Congress spent $22.5 billion on pork -- the highest-ever total. And that record will likely be broken again this year, thanks to porkers like Specter. Finishing second was Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who has a long-standing reputation for bringing home the bacon. Senator Stevens' powerful position as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee has allowed Alaska to lead the nation in pork per capita year after year. In fiscal 2003, Alaska received an incredible $610.99 in pork per person, compared to a national average of $34.33. Finishing third was Senator Tom Harkin -- another politician using the War on Terror to feather his own nest. Harkin put $98 million for an agriculture research station in Ames, Iowa in the War Supplemental Appropriations bill. He defended this by claiming the funds were crucial to combat bioterrorism in the form of animal disease. The facility had already received $88 million in pork in the past two years, thanks to Porker Harkin. More information on all the finalists and their sins against taxpayers can be found at "The Porker of the Month Hall of Shame" at CAGW's Web site. (Source: Citizens Against Government Waste: http://www.cagw.org ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 line item veto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Okay, which is the party of big government and government waste again? Seriously, those of you who are fiscally conservative ought to take a second look at the modern republican party. Has there been a spending bill they haven't liked in the last four years? The Government has been very much on the Atkins diet. All fat and no one is allowed to have any bread. Pork is only the side dish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 The problem is that the only difference the Dems are offering is to spend even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I'm not even sure if that is supportable, Kilmer. Your republican mates are winning all the pork prizes. They are the ones outspending everyone at an enormous rate... close to a historical rate of government spending growth, I believe. If you truly are against government waste, I don't know where you can turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 If you can show me a Dem proposal that calls for spending less on non-security items, I'll leave myself open to changing my mind. But I look at the biggies this year. Prescription Drug plan- the Dems alternative was to spend more. Education reforms- The dems wanted to spend more. I suppose a case could be made for the Mars mission, but I see that as a common good. For years and years the leader of this award was Robert Byrd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I think what this demonstrates is that most of the differences between the 2 parties exist in Kilmer's mind, and not in actual legislating. Both parties are in the pocket of big business. Both push the letter of the law when it comes to fundraising, electioneering, etc. Both spend our tax dollars lining their own pockets and the pockets of the people they owe. Have I mentioned that I'm not too fond of the 2-party system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLusby Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Any real Republican has never liked Specter. I wish he would become a Democrat except it would sway the Senate to the liberals. This man is a liberal and usually votes against Republicans on big issues. He definitely dilutes the party but he is not the only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 The differences between the 2 parties are striking on the few issues that matter most to me. National Security Taxes Education Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.