31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem
31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem
In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion “to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994.” In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills. In his weekend radio address, President Bush called on Congress to reform this earmarking process:
[O]ne of the best ways we can impose more discipline on federal spending is by addressing the problem of earmarks. … My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills.
Pork is a problem. But Bush should also address reform in his own administration. Bush’s earmarks are much tougher to find, often appearing “only in closely held supplements separate from the public budget books. … [A]s head of the executive branch, the president often doesn’t need earmarks: Once federal agencies get funding from Congress, his appointees are fairly free to steer sums to places, programs and vendors as the administration decides.” A few examples of Bush’s bacon:
– “While the Education Department’s budget would be cut, Mr. Bush propose[d] a 16% increase to $204 million for teaching sexual abstinence in high schools, a popular cause for social conservatives.”
– Rep. Anne Northup (R-KY), “a target of Democrats in this year’s midterm elections,” secured “a $3.5 million research grant for a local surgical team. The funds came not from congressional earmarks but from Pentagon accounts, according to the report.”
– Bush requested “$10 million for Preserve America grants for communities’ historic preservation efforts and $50 million for the Helping America’s Youth Initiative — also among programs championed by Mrs. Bush.”
Bush may say he’s against pork, but in his six years as President, Bush has never once vetoed any of Congress’s pork-laden spending bills.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
42 Responses to “31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Would this include earmarking $70 Million for Iraq Victory Celebration that was spent on Rumsfeld’s “You’re Fired” party?
December 18th, 2006 at 1:25 pmJumping on the Democratic Party’s band wagon. He can only make himself look good by stealing other peoples ideas and policies. Patheitc excuse for a man let alone a president.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:28 pmPork is a problem, heh heh, but it sure is tasty, heh heh.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:28 pmI’m the preznit, I do what I want…
But he’s The Decider… any “pork” he decides on isn’t really “pork” at all… it’s… uh… benevolent supplemental funding!
December 18th, 2006 at 1:33 pmPork is only a problem if it ain’t cooked all the way.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:35 pmBush is a pig
December 18th, 2006 at 1:38 pmThanks TP.
I don’t know how else anyone could keep up with this. Most have no clue. Bury us in information, so we don’t know which end is up. I see…
December 18th, 2006 at 1:38 pmBush is trying to outflank Democrats on this issue. Look for a Republican poison pill to be inserted into any legislation coming out of Congress. That way they can blame the Democrats for shooting it down.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:43 pmHell I could teach abstinence in High Schools for a couple thousand bucks, and the same results would occur. I don’t think all the money in the world will get teens to stop f*cking.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:46 pmDAMN!! Dubya finally has enuff pork? He ate a shitload of it in Germany and NOW wants to cut back? Is his cholesterol getting too high?
I hope he chokes on his own vomit!
December 18th, 2006 at 1:47 pmI don’t think all the money in the world will get teens to stop f*cking.
Comment by ForTruth
An interesting observation on the “Bush pork” thread.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:49 pmWhat a jackass. Under his administration, the Congressional pork flowed like beer at a drunken frat party. Never even a hint of a veto….NOW, he thinks it’s a problem?
December 18th, 2006 at 1:49 pmExit stage left, chymp.
It ain’t just a Republican Problem.
“Citizens Against Government Waste, a critic of such “pork-barrel” spending, has calculated that Pelosi’s district received nearly $31.3 million through earmarks in the last two fiscal years. “
December 18th, 2006 at 1:49 pm#9 For Truth -
Remember the old bumper sticker …….. “Fighting a war for peace is like f@#king for virginity”
Maybe Laura can shed some light on this subject for us. Or maybe Halliburton can get another multi-billion, sole source contract to deliver the message.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:50 pmIf Bush focuses on cutting pork now then he is hoping it makes the insane and unaccountable Iraq spending look not-so-bad.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:52 pmNow I could support f*cking for virginity. That makes a lot more sense that war for peace. (I will make sense out of it somehow)
December 18th, 2006 at 1:55 pmNo vetoes of pork under Hastert’s “leadership” but the House now has Pelosi as Speaker and she is leading this charge against pork barrel spending. Look - we all Bush is not really a leader, more the follower type. Well, we have new leadership in the House and Bush follows Pelosi’s lead, good. But you are right - Bush is a hypocrit on this topic.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:55 pmBush: “My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills.”
Washington Post: Bush to Join Dems in Tackling ‘Earmarks’
Newsmax, 11/13/06:
December 18th, 2006 at 2:06 pmFor a well-written analysis, please read:
Representative Nancy Pelosi’s Smart Proposal to Reform the Earmarking of Appropriations:
How Democrats Have Turned Republican, and Vice-Versa, When It Comes to Spending
By MARCI HAMILTON
—-
Thursday, Nov. 16, 2006
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20061116.html
December 18th, 2006 at 2:08 pmSpeaking of Pork…
December 18th, 2006 at 2:32 pmHasturd snuck another one in after the voting was finished.
Denny,
You definitely fit the descriptor for ‘Pork’.
Whether it’s pork in a page of a bill or a Page named Bill, Hasturd likes his Pork young & tender.
Heckuva job, Hasturd. May you live with infamy in the Bush Liebrary.
I hate this jerk. I remember those education cuts. They came right around the time I was leaving university, and my younger brother and sister were going in.
Sorry boys and girls, no money for smarts. But if you join the war Imma start next year…
December 18th, 2006 at 2:32 pm[…] Read more Bacon […]
December 18th, 2006 at 2:42 pm#2, 8, 17, & 18 — This is exactly what Bush used to do as Governor of Texas. He’d find out what legislation was popular and was going to pass even without his support and then he’d jump in front of it and claim it as his own initiative. That’s how he got his “bipartisan” label as Governor. I hope some news organization calls him on this… Keith???
Molly Ivans wrote about it years ago. Maybe she’ll dust out and update that column.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:58 pmEarmarks and signing statements say it all. Hallmarks of the bush administration.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:05 pmLuckily we have the Dems in power now so we wont see 1 single bill with pork in it.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pmWell, here’s another case of a link of mine not making it to the boards.
For an excellent article on earmarks, google “Nancy Pelosi’s Smart Proposal” and go to the findlaw article on the top of the list.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:22 pmRR - why weren’t you hollering about the rampant spending by the Republicans?
Bush’s earmarks come in the form of “emergency spending allocations.” In fact he’s funded 3 years of War spending as an “emergency spending allocation” thus keeping the cost of the War out of the “official” budget deficit. And the Pentagon has been instructed to shift more and more defense spending into this off-budget item, thus masking the true cost of Bush’s Borrowing to fund the War Profiteers.
I don’t see you complaining about any of that. Why the heck not?
December 18th, 2006 at 3:33 pmThanks for nothing, president nitwit.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:31 pm#24: No one’s made that guarantee (unless you can refresh my memory otherwise). But, at least we won’t be seeing a RECORD SETTING number of pork projects and RECORDS SETTING tax dollars going towards pork projects, like we’ve seen with the Republicans in control.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:32 pm“My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills.”
Way to go, swifty. Did you happen to notice who was running Congress when earmarks became such a huge problem? Did you happen to notice who got their asses kicked in the last election? And did you happen to hear anything about the Democratic leadership’s plans to deal with the problem?
Your record of accomplishments, Dubya, just flat out sucks. So keep your mitts off of this and leave it to a group of competent adults to take care of it. If you want a list of things inside the White House that need fixing, I’m sure we can come up with enough stuff to keep you busy right up until January ‘08, or until you leave the White House, whichever comes first.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:00 pm#24 Roger_Roger
The Republicans came into power in ‘94 complaining about pork and runaway spending. What did they do? They piled up more pork projects than had ever been seen before. And then they started to cut themselves in for slices of the spending, personally benefitting from the projects, investing in land and then funding projects to make the land more valuable.
There have always been pork barrel projects and it’s only natural for members of Congress to try to win jobs and contracts for people in their districts. But, the Republicans of the 109th Congress took it to a whole new level. And you, Roger_Roger, didn’t have a damn thing to say about it until now. As long as it was the GOP that was getting rich off of taxpayers’ money, you didn’t see a problem. All of a sudden, the Democrats are trying to do something about a legitimate problem that’s killing our economy and robbing taxpayers blind, and you want to hold them to a standard that the Congress has never seen before in its entire history. Get serious.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:10 pmSince the 1980’s pork has gone up with the Repugnicants, down with the Democrats. I wonder if they can still find naive and uneducated people who still believe the opposite, outside of the creationist crowd?
December 18th, 2006 at 5:21 pm“Creating reality one more time cuz I wont (sic) to, cuz y’see you cain’t stop me.”
-The Deliberator-
December 18th, 2006 at 5:23 pmSpeaking of Pork, where’s Daryll??
December 18th, 2006 at 5:25 pmOf course you are now that the republicans are going going….almost gone.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:51 pmLuckily we have Roger_Roger posting here now so we won’t see one post that is worth while from him.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:54 pmThe pork that is the biggest problem is the pork between GDumbya’s ears. Just look at this moron and tell me that he is capable of any critical thought –> http://thumbsnap.com/v/6YvXAPG0.jpg
December 18th, 2006 at 6:20 pmit’s a problem now that the republicans are no longer in power and have already broke the bank. It’s now the dems problem and so, now he says so. real good, jr.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:34 amI believe this corrupt form of excessive spending is what cost the republicans the congress. Hopefully democrats will see the message and start solving this problem, but I’m not holding my breath.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:20 am31,709 Earmarks Later, Pigs Around the World realize that Bush Is An Idiot…..
December 19th, 2006 at 8:38 amWith all the Dems getting into congress I would say now would be a great time to look at cutting the pork spending. Look for it to get a lot worse now and the facts to not be reported by the media. Which is why the left wingers are squeeling like stuck pigs now.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:21 pmBush’s cabinet should convert to Islam, that will do away with the pork problem for sure. The only problem with Bush’s cabinet converting to Islam is that it would just add another sect to the sectarian fighting in Iraq… sheesh.
December 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pm