Bush Administration Wastes Billions in Unnecessary Spending

[bevin]

In answering where the billions he proposes to spend on Katrina recovery will come from, Bush replies...

Quote:

---

"We're going to have to make sure we cut unnecessary spending," Bush said without volunteering any specific programs. "We should not raise taxes."

---

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050919/pl_usatoday/thebucksstartherebushsplanraisesquestions

i.e. After 6 years of GWB in the White House and Republicans in charge of both houses, there is still billions of unnecessary spending being done...

/Bevin

[Jeannieb43]

And I heard a financial guru on a TV news channel today making the statement that the tax revenues lost to the Federal coffers because of the Bush tax cuts would have been sufficient to pay for the entire rebuilding of New Orleans.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

the tax revenues lost to the Federal coffers because of the Bush tax cuts would have been sufficient to pay for the entire rebuilding of New Orleans.

---

Perhaps. But it assumes two facts not in evidence.

1. That tax revenues declined.

2. That tax revenues would have been higher if tax rates had not been cut.

#2 has repeatedly been demonstrated to be false. Higher marginal rates stifle the economy, so revenues fall. Gov't gets a bigger piece of the pie, but the pie shrinks.

Tax rates affect economic activity.

Almost every European country has higher tax rates than the U.S. But the also have slower economic growth, and higher unemployment.

Now, I don't agree with every spending item in the budget, but that's the way democracy works. It's messy, and it's not efficient. That's why I want government to do only those few things which private enterprise cannot do safely.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

i.e. After 6 years of GWB in the White House and Republicans in charge of both houses, there is still billions of unnecessary spending being done...

---

Gee, I was under the impression that "pork barrel spending" occured the democrates...But apparently, I was wrong...It is the republicans who are causing the pork barrel spending. Gee, I thought the republicans were against pork barrel spending...I thought they were the tax cutting administration, but it appears that they must be spending our money like it is going out of style...Hmmmmmmmm...

/TIC

[Dr. Shane]

All congressmen cause pork-barrel spending. ALL. That is how they get re-elected. This is not a partisan issue. Anyone who thinks it is doesn't not understand how Washington works.

George W. Bush is and always has been a big spender. Proclaiming such is like saying the sky is blue. Please, tell us something we don't know.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

All congressmen cause pork-barrel spending.

---

Well, now there's an idea...All spending is pork barrel spending...That is the message that you are trying to say,isn't it, Shane?

And to say that Interstate-5 that runs between California to the Canadian boarder is "pork barrel" would be disputed with many businesses. I am sure that the internet that you are courrently reading from would not be concidered 'pork barrel'...or would you concider it "pork"?

Is the money spent on forests concider pork? Or the national parks? Of course, these things are "pork", or are they?

Oh well....

[Derrell M]

It seems that there is an assumption that pork-barrel spending is somehow fundamentally wrong. So the local congressman gets federal money for a highways project on I-5 that will be performed by a contractor who donated to his campaign. So some of his/her supporters will make some money in the process. So the I-5 is kept in good, smooth, running condition as a result. This is how our country has operated since its inception. Although there are some projects (e.g. mating habits of crickets) that are ridiculous, pork has always been an essential part of this country's success. (No, I am not a politician up for re-election)

[Derrell M]

Representatives are elected for the purpose of representing their constituents-the residents of their district. Representation of their constituents in the area of spending is an essential part of their job, and in the upkeep of this country.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

It seems that there is an assumption that pork-barrel spending is somehow fundamentally wrong. So the local congressman gets federal money for a highways project on I-5 that will be performed by a contractor who donated to his campaign. So some of his/her supporters will make some money in the process. So the I-5 is kept in good, smooth, running condition as a result. This is how our country has operated since its inception.

---

I beg to differ with you...The money is alloted from the feds [usually by the urging of your state reps/senators]to your state who, in turn, get bids for maintaince on a road way.

While moneys should not be allocated to a specific contractor[although I know that this happens as in Halliburton's "no contract" bids], it does occassionally occur. But to do as you have discribed is concidered fraud and is punishable with fines and imprisonment. And these types of projects are NOT concidered as 'pork'. This is something that is necessary to maintain the roads.

However, when you talk about this-

Quote:

---

Although there are some projects (e.g. mating habits of crickets) that are ridiculous, pork has always been an essential part of this country's success. (No, I am not a politician up for re-election)

---

What you have described IS pork and is unnecessary to the maintaince of the state. There are some things that are concider pork, ie NASA. It is not necessary for the state, however, it is necessary for the defense of the US as there are other experiements done in the weightlessnes of space that can not be done here. And glad is the state where each of Nasa's necessary equipment and space ports are at. I have seen the tomatoe plants that were irradiated in space and several generations later how they have changed. Interesting...bizarre, but interesting.

No, not all money allocated to a state is concidered "Pork barrel" spending. The creation of National Park, MAY be concidered pork. And yes, there is some overlap.

Medicare and social security is NOT concidered pork. It is necessary to help the working poor in not becoming homeless in thier declining years.

So when Shane talks of all federal spending is pork barrel spending, it depends upon your definition of pork barrel spending. His is an over simplifiation and over stated position....

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It seems that there is an assumption that pork-barrel spending is somehow fundamentally wrong.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Pork-barrel spending is the appropreation of federal funds to projects that benefit only a handful of the population and are not for the greater good. In my business of construction I build a lot of schools that have a lot of pork in them. Now schools themselves are not pork projects as they benefit many and serve the greater good. However public schools are now being designed in such a way to add 20% - 50% more cost to them. The additional cost benefits architects and contractors who's fees are a percentage of the construction cost. Thus the more expensive the school, the higher the fee. Some agrue that fancy and expensive schools add value to the community so much that they increase property values and attract people and industry to move to the community. Well, I tend to think the fancy and expensive schools have more to do with design and construction fees than increasing property values. Thus I consider all the bells and whistles to be pork. I mean what difference does a $12 doorstop as opposed to a $2.50 doorstop make to a child's education? Multiple that by 250 doors and it adds $2,300 to the progect - in door stops alone!

If you have a good congressman he is getting federal funding for your community that serves only a small part of your community and not the greater good. It may be subsidies for a brewry, a grant for a local teacher to study mold growth on trees or paying farmers not to grow a crop. Perhaps the most absurb pork I have seen is a grant to study the effects of porn on women - not the effects on the actresses in the industry or the wives of men addicted to it but rather, well... we don't need to go there. Tax dollars at work <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> Whatever it is, if a congressman isn't getting such funds, he isn't doing his job.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

So when Shane talks of all federal spending is pork barrel spending, it depends upon your definition of pork barrel spending. His is an over simplifiation and over stated position....

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Do I need to speak for myself since others are so willing to speak for me <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

All congressmen cause pork-barrel spending. ALL.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I said ALL congressmen cause pork-barrel spending. Note that I did not say that all federal spending is pork-barrel. Am I that hard to follow? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

[]http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2005/po050919.gif[/]