According to a Congressional Research Service study, the number of earmarks in spending, or appropriations, bills went from 4,126 in 1994 to 15,877 in 2005. The value of those earmarks doubled to $47.4 billion in the same period. Earmarked projects often include roads, bridges and economic development efforts.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2767546&page=3
================
2007-10-09 03:39:32 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
His critics call him the "King of Pork" for relentlessly "earmarking" taxpayer dollars to Alaska. In one recent year, according to the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, Stevens sent almost $1,000 per capita to Alaska, 30 times what went to the average state, based on population.
Stevens makes no apologies for the billions of dollars he has sent to Alaska for port facilities, military barracks, water and sewer projects and the Alaska Railroad, just for starters.
"They can call it what they want," Stevens told The Associated Press. "I call it good government."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18080678/
2007-10-09 03:39:43 · update #1
===================
The right-wing Tax Foundation did a study detailing how much each state payed in federal taxes versus how much they took in federal reveneues. Red states in general ranked as the biggest "welfare states" of all.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
2007-10-09 03:41:32 · update #2
Pork spending is about earmarks going to states. Think bridges to nowhere. It does not include all spending.
2007-10-09 03:47:50 · update #3
How are all these 'lazy' Red States ever going to stand on their own if they're always accepting government handouts?
.
2007-10-09 03:54:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is no question there is too much pork on both sides of the aisle in Washington. It has become a game of delivering the dollars to your district instead of what is good for the United States of America. You can see that in the way homeland security funding has played out. Federal dollars for computer systems in the basement of some podunk town while cities still cannot fund the overtime needed to train first responders. Unless we do something to change the system, it is going to continue to be the same. You know that every democratic congress member would love to have those pork stats. Pointing fingers back and forth is what they want us to do. Neither party is willing to step up and be responsible for spending.
2007-10-09 10:51:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is true about Stevens, but to be honest, Robert Byrd isn't far behind. These guys are career politicians and pork barrel handouts for their low income states have kept them very popular among voters. Byrd is a saint in WV for the amount of federal money he's brought in.
2007-10-09 10:49:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush has taken Clinton's surplus and given us a record deficit with a disastrous war with no end in sight and a Republican Congressman is a big pork spender. That definitely isn't fiscal conservatism!
2007-10-09 10:55:10 · answer #4 · answered by tangerine 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No surprise there. Of course republicans try to spin it or cut and run when you point it out to them since it's a FACT.
2007-10-09 10:57:26 · answer #5 · answered by chickenhawkbushbots 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Maybe we should be thankful that he's NOT running for the Presidency and attempting to hide it, while complaining about the needless spending of others, eh? But we all know your gal Hillary. :)
2007-10-09 10:46:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Its because of the war isnt it?
2007-10-09 10:42:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋