Many people don't understand what pork-barrel spending is. It is when you try to hide spending money on something in a bill that is trying to be passed for a totally different reason.
We now see that the Democrats have a war "plan." This is their first ever plan about the Iraq war, although they have criticized the White House plan many times they have just now came up with one of their own.
Guess what the plan includes? It includes funding for a health care program for low-income children.
Nothing at all to do with the war. A bill that couldn't be passes on its own merit is now hidden in their war plan.
2007-03-07 19:20:09 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
A non partisan watchdog group of one million members, Citizens Against Government Waste, rates congress for their Pork Barrel spending.
That's "wasteful" and not spending on the war, our troops, Katrina, homeland security and such that the Democrats claim as wasteful.
However, we can see from their site the Democrats are the absolutely worst abusers of government waste. They keep track of everyone in congress. If you want to know how your representative did, take a look here: http://www.cagw.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard&congress=109&location=H&lcmd=score-asc&lcmd_cf=
2007-03-07 19:22:36 · update #1
LOL! Folks, instead of making claims that are not true when I have a link to the proof, at least go and see for yourself instead of putting your foot in your mouth. The 100 worst pork barrel spenders in the House are all Democrats... not a single Republican... .not even one!
Not only can you see how they voted but you can see what they voted for.
This is no secret as you think it is... there are over a Million members supporting this watchdog group and have done so for decades. They are both Republican and Democrat. It is about wasteful spending and not politics as you trying to hype it. It "is" recorded, with their vote and what the vote was for... there is no getting out of it... this is proof and a simply "pretending" things are different doesn't make it so except in a little girl's tea party.
2007-03-07 20:03:23 · update #2
BTW, this Bridge to Alaska must have been on the DNC talking points list.
Let me tell you what the didn't tell you...
It didn't pass.
LOL! Oh well, it was good propaganda while it lasted. Which for the Democrats that means the propaganda the bridge was built will last for the next 10 years. Just don't bring any fishing poles to fish off that bridge anytime soon.
2007-03-07 20:13:25 · update #3
Yes, it's out of hand and no one is better at hiding provisions than the Dems. The States are supposed to take care of the low income parents with children with Medicaid ( or whatever they call it in each State).
That money could be going into renovations at Walter Reed Hospital...but just make sure the po'folks get it for the kids. Guess their moms (or/and dads) are too busy drinking up the rest of their income (or welfare money).
2007-03-07 19:49:35 · answer #1 · answered by chole_24 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
It appears that you have picked out a 'low income children's health care' program as 'pork barrel spending'.
It is a sad commentary when a bill to help our unfortunate children has to be buried in a war plan bill in order for it to get passed.
And to say that it couldn't get passed on its' own merits is even a sadder commentary for Republicans.
The 'pork barrel' issue also came to light recently when the Democrats introduced a bill for the 'minimum wage increase' the Republicans slid their 'pork' in by inserting an increase tax break for small business owners.
Robert, the 'pork' spending is 'greased' on both sides of the aisles in case you haven't noticed. Or are you of the mind that Republicans are right all the time and the Democrats are wrong all the time? If you are Good Luck!!!!
2007-03-08 04:40:59 · answer #2 · answered by dVille 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pork Barrel spending when attached to a bill is called an Earmark.
Earmarks were used at an increase of 600% from 2001 until 2006 by the Republic Congress. So part of your answer is yes it is out of control.
The rest of the answer is that the new Democratic Congress in January of this year, 2007, passed legislation curbing earmarks and putting new stipulations on them. For example, in the past, a congressionperson's name literally wasn't required to be attached to an earmark... amazing. Now, a name is required and any congressional member has the right to request a vote on an Earmark.
If you want more information and a very detailed explanation of what an earmark is and how they work, go to
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlvIMP6AWwth56QPFrMD8xojzKIX?qid=20060830111342AADfQSW
That's a link to one of my best answers on the subject.
2007-03-08 16:49:06 · answer #3 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wait a minute, the democratic members of congress have been in "control" of the legislature for less than 3 months. A health care program for low-income children. It is not like they are trying to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska or something. I suppose you feel the funding for the war plan should only include money for bombing low income children in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than rebuilding, and restoring the basic necessities such as food, clean water, medicine, clothing and shelter.
I hope and pray the Democratic Party can find solutions to the mess that President Bush, VP Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz made out of the invasion of Iraq.
2007-03-08 03:45:35 · answer #4 · answered by Patricialee 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Welcome to reality. Your naivete is amazing if you believe that both parties don't engage in this. One of the most disgusting examples was a few years ago when there was serious flooding in the Dakota's. There was a bill that the republican controlled congress knew that Clinton wouldn't sign. What did they do? They attached it to bill providing relief to people suffering due to the floods, a bill they knoew Clinton would sign.
2007-03-08 08:42:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, let's mention pork barrel spending. The republicans are masters at it. Remember the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska?
I'm sure you don't since that piece of pork was sponsored by a republican. But thanks for wasting my time with your BS propaganda. Try taking the blinders off and focus that oh so critical eye on your republican masters. I have a feeling that this is way beyond your capability so I won't hold my breath.
2007-03-08 03:29:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Shame on you. In essence you are saying lets spend our taxpayers $ on a war and rebuilding Iraq, but the children of this country sorry 'bout your luck.
2007-03-08 05:57:56 · answer #7 · answered by DEMMY 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Look what a thug wrote! Baby, Libby stands for GOP - stick your tales about honesty up your priest-violated behind (are you the priest-banged sort or the boy-molesting one?).
2007-03-08 04:09:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Democrats are good in criticism but they also have their own pork barrel spending.
2007-03-08 03:27:12 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
HELLL YEAH .iMPEACH CLINTON AGAIN(Hilary too)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bush didn't spy on my but Bill did. LOOK up the Meggido Paper!!
boycit wiki look up anti christ
2007-03-08 03:30:20 · answer #10 · answered by ak6702 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋