| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| How About Some Pork?; How much of the budget is pork? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 29 2007, 01:49 PM (256 Views) | |
| George K | Dec 29 2007, 01:49 PM Post #1 |
|
Finally
|
Surprisingly little, according to Factcheck.org. Q:What percentage of the national spending is pork? A:About 1 percent. Pork-barrel spending is funding allocated for legislators' pet projects, often without public hearings or a request from the president. Citizens Against Government Waste, an anti-pork watchdog group, estimated that pork projects cost $29 billion in 2006. (CAGW defines "pork" as "a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures.") The Office of Management and Budget's historical tables show a federal outlay of $2.66 trillion that year, so pork would represent 1.1 percent of the total spending. In 2005, CAGW identified 13,997 projects costing $27.3 billion that met its definition of pork spending; as in 2006, that was about 1.1 percent of total spending. Most pork spending comes in the form of "earmarks," which are items inserted in federal spending bills at the specific request of a House or Senate member. For 2005, the OMB offered a tally of 13,492 "earmarks" costing $18.9 billion out of $2.47 trillion in outlays, or about 0.77 percent of total federal spending. But earmarks aren't the only form of pork. For example, CAGW counts as pork any spending project that isn't requested by the administration and also isn't awarded through competition. Hundreds of spending items meet CAGW's definition even though they are not earmarks. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Dec 29 2007, 04:43 PM Post #2 |
|
Cheers
|
Interesting... but I wonder what percentage of non-defense discretionary spending that represents. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 29 2007, 05:41 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I'm just wondering how government can have discretionary money at all. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Dec 29 2007, 06:33 PM Post #4 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Quite a lot but that is the real scandal isn't it. No more insidious legislative language has ever been crafted than: "Such funds as are necessary shall be allocated". |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Dec 30 2007, 06:02 AM Post #5 |
|
Cheers
|
Indeed. Interestingly, (and totally beside the point of this thread) Social Security does not fit that pattern. Under current law when the benefits can no longer be paid by the current tax and the trust fund, benefits are automatically reduced. Of course, some government obligations pretty much have to contain such language. How would veterans benefits work otherwise? Or pensions for retired military personnel? I think medicare needs similar language as social security. Medcare payments to providers would then be adjusted every year based on actuarial estimates, with amounts paid for various services prorated based on available monies. Hospitals and doctors could then require any differential as a co-pay. Of course seniors would object, and as a result the medicare tax level would get fought over in elections. But in a democracy thats the way it should work. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Dec 31 2007, 08:13 PM Post #6 |
|
Cheers
|
Didn't realize you were such a fan of entitlements. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









12:14 AM Jul 11