To paraphrase Instapundit, How's that Hope and Change Same working out for ya'?

(Though I think it's probably not quite the same - I don't remember quite as much cronyism and actual thuggery reported during the Bush Administration.)

I don't remember quite as much cronyism and actual thuggery reported during the Bush Administration.

Ironic statement, on the anniversary of Katrina.

"Considering it's Montana, not California or New York, yeah a little bit. Montana, one of the more conservative (though not bat-shit crazy) states, could easily vote in Republicans for senators, but choose not to."

One of the main problems with our system is that, because of the way the Senate is set up there isn't a structural ideological bent to the way pork barrel spending is doled out, rather there is a population density and rural bent to it. If we had a unicameral system or one that didn't so drastically under-represent the vast majority of the population in this country than at least the "wasteful pork barrel spending" would be diverted to areas with large populations. More likely, there would be less pork barrel spending since it wouldn't go nearly as far if Senators represented areas that had much larger populations.

So we're supposed to think the entire stimulus package is somehow bad because one project, representing 1/50,000th of the stimulus, might be pork?

What makes you think that this is the only project? Ever hear of a congressman named Murtha?

What makes you think that this is the only project? Ever hear of a congressman named Murtha?

What makes you think it's not? If you have evidence for more, share.

Ironic statement, on the anniversary of Katrina.

Oh man, you beat me to that response.

I don't remember quite as much cronyism and actual thuggery reported during the Bush Administration.

Thuggery? You may not like the fact that Montana's senators lobbied for some stimulus money, but how is that "thuggery"? Did Max Baucus threaten to kneecap somebody?

I don't remember quite as much cronyism and actual thuggery reported during the Bush Administration

Anyone who has already forgotten beating shackled prisoners to death and sending innocents to outsourced torture shops might want to watch Mememto for life-improvement tips.

Angus, I totally disagree. While the actual budgetary numbers of strictly defined pork (amendments added after committee) are a fraction of the budget, the attitude that goes into them affects the entire budget.

For example, the Salt Lake Trolley system was in the budget and was not, by definition, pork, but the attitude that put it there was the same attitude that adds pork. It begs the question of why people outside of Utah or even Salt Lake, should pay a dime for the Salt Lake Trolley? Even if Utahns want it, why should they send their money to the US government only to have them send it back?

Then there is the question of constitutional authority. Building or fixing a border checkpoint is clearly constitutional, spending money on the Salt Lake Trolley is, to me, clearly unconstitutional. So is fixing a planetarium in Chicago or an inland marina in California.

Finally, there is the simple fact that pork is little more than buying votes. It distorts the political system (though the seventeenth amendment did far more damage, and combined with the sixteenth amendment, has created the perverse budgetary system we have.)

For all the fury it generates on conservative websites, pork is completely irrelevant to the U.S. budget and economic woes. It's a tiny percentage of federal spending and a non-issue in any sense except the symbolic.

You're confusing pork and earmarks. "____ is a tiny percentage of the federal budget" is the liberal talking point related to earmarks, not pork.

"Stimulus" is pretty much by definition going to be pork. As Bastiat argued, at best government programs can divert labor and capital. At worst, and as is usually the case, they will hurt the labor force and destroy capital.

As the Austrian school would argue, the way out of this mess is to cleanse the system of malinvestments created by government distortions in the market and start fresh. These stimulus efforts will do the exact opposite by prolonging the pain while decreasing our creditworthiness (and by extension our dollar).

Yet the Krugman's of the world believe the deficits being run up on these ridiculous projects are going to save us. It is just more central planning.

>>And vmark1: That's true of any federal spending with which you, I, or anybody else disagrees.<<

I guess we all get to take a so called beating. It's still waste, it's still wrong. I don't care who it's going to.

but two powerful Democratic senators persuaded the administration to make it happen.

Ahh, the hacktastic Mr. Adler strikes again.

I guess he was just unable to come across any republican senators engaging in the same disgraceful behavior ...

jnk (missing a "u" are we?):

The article is from the Associated Press. Professor Adler did not cherrypick out of an article--he mentioned the focal point of the article. So exactly how does that make him a "hack"?

I also confused earmarks and pork, but my fundamental argument still stands. For clarity, according to Citizens Against Government Waste:

A "pork" project is a line-item in an appropriations or authorization bill that designates funds for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures.

...items in the Congressional Pig Book Summary meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:

* Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
* Not specifically authorized;
* Not competitively awarded;
* Not requested by the President;
* Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
* Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
* Serves only a local or special interest.

This eliminates a whole lot of projects that most people would consider pork, though it's useful for creating a consistent definition for the purposes of measurement.

Since my definition is of what the government (federal and state) should do is much more narrow, I'd say that the amount of pork isn't trivial and likely makes up more than a third of the federal budget.

So we're supposed to think the entire stimulus package is somehow bad because one project, representing 1/50,000th of the stimulus, might be pork?

Of course not. No one expects you to think that anything a Democratic administration does is bad.

I stand by my statement. Were this a Republican administration doing the same thing, you would have no problems identifying the waste and fraud; you certainly wouldn't be trying to minimize it.

The stimulus was supposed to be different, but it looks like more of the same.

Just figuring that out now? You didn't actually believe at any point that Obama was going to any different from any other politician, did you? If you or anyone reading this ever at any point believed that Obama would be something unique, then hopefully by now you realize that you have been suckered.

Despair.com

CORRUPTION:

I WANT EITHER LESS CORRUPTION OR MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN IT

I wasn't making an argument

Ah, something we can agree on.

The funny thing IMO is that this is both constitutionally legitimate spending (control of who enters the U.S.) and that an argument can be made that the lightly traveled border stations are potential al-Qaeda (or other terrorist) infiltration points and therefore need to be beefed up.

If the entire stimulus bill were projects such as this, it would be far better IMO than what actually resulted (grants to states to expand eligibility for different benefits, etc.).

Personally, I make a higher priority of keeping pork clean (e.g., eliminating projects that seem designed to benefit Congressman Murtha and his family) than of trying to eliminate it entirely.

Nick

is absurd in a stimulus package of $750 billion

No, the absurdity is that there is even a stimulus package, much less one that in this specific instance is for $750,000,000,000.00.

With at least $2,000,000,000,000.00 in such packages floating around, in my view the response of the federal government becomes even more absurd.

While I marvel at your ability to see U.S. media as one big conspiracy, nothing you say rebuts to the tragic example of cronyism in the Bush administration that was "Brownie." Or is it your contention he was well-qualified for the job

Tragic? Katrina was a tragedy, but it wasn't "Brownie's" fault. In fact, a year or two before the Bush administration was lauded throughout Florida for their response to four destructive hurricanes.

There's lots of fault to hand out wrt Katrina, but almost none of it goes to the Federal response. But since cronyism is the subject (and related corruption and incompetence), check out the government of New Orleans before and during the storm.

Only the building hatred of Bush on the left made Katrina a national issue instead of a local tragedy.

Oh, and the worst damage was in Mississippi. You probably didn't hear much about that, because Mississippi was prepared at the local level, and handled their problems without whining and grandstanding. New Orleans suffered flooding, almost all survivable if the local officials had been on the ball. Since the National Hurricane Center had been predicting catastrophic flooding in New Orleans for at least 10 years (when Dr. Bob Sheets, at a local AMA Meeting, said was his worst nightmare - and he was talking category 3, not 5).

What was completely absurd was a promise by a president to end pork - something only Congress can do.

John Moore:

There was plenty of blame to go around re Katrina, but the point that you and one or two others are willfully dodging is that "Brownie" was an incompetent crony. And in the Bush admin., while he is probably the most famous one, he was hardly the only one.

Quite right. I too feel like Angus that the magnitude of pork as a proportion of the budget is largely inconsequential in of itself. But the damage that pork causes to the civic culture of the legislative branch should be more worrying.

McCain used to call earmarks (which is specifically the category of pork we're discussing here) a "gateway drug." The problem is, these earmarks are used to "buy" the votes of individual congressmen for big programs. If there were no money for "sleepy Montana checkpoints" in the so-called "stimulus package," then perhaps there would be no votes from sleepy Montana congressmen for the so-called "stimulus package."

It's democracy. Got a better idea?

How 'bout limiting the power of the Federal Government to regulating interstate commerce and a few other things?

Lookit, pork is endemic to the structure of the constitution. If you're upset about pork, blame the framers for drafting a constitution that (1) elects congressmen on the basis of local constituencies, rather than nationwide, (2) gives every state equal representation in the Senate.

If we had nationwide parliamentary elections, as in Israel or many other democracies, congressmen would not feel beholden to local interests. And if Senate seats were allocated to states in proportion to population, "sleepy border checkpoints in Montana" could not compete with the Port of Oakland for federal money.

The framers made a policy judgment that the agency costs of constituency-based representation, and equal state representation in the Senate, were worth the benefits in local accountability and political stability, respectively.

Considering the popularity of original intent around here, it seems to me that we should accept their policy judgment, warts and all.

Oh, and the idea that only liberals favor pork is laughable. Republican senators submit their earmark requests, too. (John McCain famously doesn't, but don't think that Senator Kyl, who is considerably to McCain's right, doesn't pick up the slack for Arizona.)

OK. So you don't agree w/Max and his 15 million to his border crossing. You decide you don't wanna pay...Not much of a choice is there? IRS, fines, confiscation of property, possible prison terms, attorney fees...thuggery? Kneecap or IRS?

This is called "taxation," which has pretty much been recognized as a legitimate governmental function by every government in history -- including in 1789, by the way.

And at any unit of government bigger than, say, a small town in Vermont, that means people have to delegate the power to allocate tax revenues to their elected officials.

Nice try, though.

David M. Nieporent:

It's democracy. Got a better idea?
Yes.

Thank you.

There was plenty of blame to go around re Katrina, but the point that you and one or two others are willfully dodging is that "Brownie" was an incompetent crony. And in the Bush admin., while he is probably the most famous one, he was hardly the only one.

Crony is a word used by opponents often to characterize people who are hired by their friends or former co-workers. However, often those people are hired exactly because they are known quanitities. I guess I'm guilty of hiring plenty of "cronies" in my job - because I knew their capabilities.

Specifically how was Brownie more incompetent than the usual appointee?

Most of what conservatives people rail against as "pork" really means "funding priorities I disagree with."
I do think we ought to be fair to conservatives here, though I don't dispute your point.