The AP article is ridiculous. “Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork – tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.”
Would the AP prefer that the projects not actually be located anywhere, and not benefit anyone? How exactly would that work? By this standard all government spending is pork.
To on the one hand complain that the stimulus spending is too slow, and on the other that it benefits existing needs and projects, boggles the mind.
OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
From the article: For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill.,
Jim, you misunderstand the definition of pork. Ordinary, non-pork spending works this way:
Congress: Yo, Executive! Here’s a new law, providing for a Department of Lunar Colonies, which should develop economical transportation facilities and transship all those malcontents who voted against Our Great Glorious Leader’s Penis Pill Stimulus Package. Get busy.
Prez: Gotcha. One moment please. Hello? IRS? Send me over a list of prominent Democrats without tax evasion problems. Oh? Well, who is he? OK. ring, ring Congratulations, Mr. Secretary. Get me a budget by this afternoon.
Newly-confirmed Secretary of Lunie Affairs: Congress, here’s our budget request for next year. This is how much money we need to do what you want us to do. If you want to know exactly what we’re doing, you can read the 900-page appendix.
Congress: Huh? Oh, money? Here, have some.
That’s it. Notice that Congress doesn’t normally read the 900-page appendix, and certainly doesn’t micromanage it. It becomes pork when the last exchange changes, like so:
Congress: Huh? Oh, money? Here, have some. You sure you don’t want more?
Sec’y: Quite sure, thanks.
Congress: No, wait. You sure you don’t need an extra $2 billion to fund….er, hold on….shuffles notes, finds letter from Prominent Democratic Donor…ah!….to fund the PDD Center for Lunar Diversity, located in Rapid City?
Sec’y: Er…I don’t think so.
Congress: No? Maybe you need $2 billion less than your request, then?
Sec’y: Um, no. Gosh! Now you mention it, we do need a Center for Lunar Diversity, and it does need to be located in Rapid City, 500 miles from our nearest facility. Thanks for reminding me!
Congress: My pleasure.
There’s a reason the Founders left the detailed implementation of the law to the Executive, a wholly separate branch of government that is elected on a national basis (i.e. does not serve any one restricted constituency, like a state or district). They knew (from bitter experience) that Congress, if given the executive as well as legislative function, would degenerate into a passel of special interest whores, who would spend the public money on whatever suited their individual fancies, district by district.
Carl, I think that’s a fantasy world. If Congressman A votes for a plan to build more bridges, she knows full well which bridge projects in her district are near the top of the priority list, and therefore likely to be funded. An earmark gives the targeting the force of law, but it isn’t as if no one knows where the money is going otherwise.
It would be ridiculous to vote for funds to quickly convert a coal plant to sequester carbon without knowing that there’s a candidate plant that satisfies the requirements of the project. Especially given the need to spend this money quickly, the fact that we know where it’s going is a feature, not a bug.
Notice that Congress doesn’t normally read the 900-page appendix, and certainly doesn’t micromanage it. It becomes pork when the last exchange changes
So, it’s pork if an elected official micromanages it but not pork if an unelected offical does?
*Of course* OMB’s definition says all spending requested by OMB is good and any changes made by Congress are bad. What else would you expect?
And of course, pols like John McCain agree with that definition, since it allows them to claim they are “against pork” while still voting for lots and lots of spending.
The question is, do you have any reason to believe unelected bureucrats make better decisions than elected officials? Do you think civil servants are never influenced by local or other interests? When Johnson Space Center requests money to maintain their cattle herd, do you imagine that’s simply because keeping cattle is in the national interest?
Wasteful spending is wasteful spending. The fact that it’s requested by a (supposedly infallible) bureaucrat doesn’t change that.
There’s a reason the Founders left the detailed implementation of the law to the Executive,
The Founders gave the Executive branch power to enforce the law. They gave Congress the power of the purse. Nothing says they must defer to the Imperial Presidency on the details. Robert Heinlein pointed out that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to delegate its authority to make laws (even if you call them “regulations” instead of laws).
Jim, you are living in a fantasy world if you think generic Congressman Able knows all that information. They’re only human, you know. The bulk of the time, they don’t even read the bills on which they vote, and they have very little knowledge of where the money goes exactly.
Don’t believe it? You try it. Go get the budget of some random Federal agency, something smallish like NOAA or NASA, not DoD or DoE or HHS. Now figure out exactly where that money went last year, and how much was spent within 50 miles of your home address. Oh, and don’t take more than 90 minutes to do it over the next 3 days, because that’s about as much time as you can spare from all your other duties as a Senator or Representative.
Use your head. If you work in a moderate-sized firm, with say $50 million in sales, does every member of your board know where every dollar went? Can they even nail it down by department to the nearest $10,000? Hell no. Now translate to a $2 trillion firm, with 2 million employees, and you’re one of 435 “board” members. Hopeless. This is, indeed, one of the reasons why lobbyists have so much power. They do that kind of research for the poor Congressman, and summarize it all in a nice neat one-page action statement. Vote for this bill, or introduce this amendment, and the following Good Things will happen, followed by a small honorarium to your re-election fund. In truth, they are a small army of technically unpaid Congressional staff research help who take the load of knowing all the detail off the Congressman’s back. Alas, they have a certain interest in the outcome.
So, it’s pork if an elected official micromanages it but not pork if an unelected offical does?
Don’t be dense, Ed. First of all, every official in the Executive Branch executes the will of the President, and only that will (ideally), and, you’ll recall, the President is very much an elected official. Indeed, the important point here is that the President is elected by the entire nation. He is, therefore, presumed to be able to best balance the needs of Louisiana for flood protection against the needs of Florida for keeping NASA jobs, and make the difficult choices necessary in a world of limited resources.
By contrast, the Louisiana Congressman has zero interest in protecting the interests of Florida voters, and the Florida Congressman has none in protecting the interest of Louisiana homeowners. Not surprisingly, they will each very willingly target money raised nationally to support their own particular district. It’s called “bringing home the bacon.” Surely you’ve actually read your local Congressman’s newsletter to his constituents, in which he boasts about all the Federal tax money he caused to be spent in your district. Clearly he views that as his major job. Equally clearly, his ability to think nationally when it comes to spending the nation’s money is pretty compromised.
This, as I said, is why the Founders assigned Congress the role of setting national goals and priorities. They’re perfectly capable of getting together and saying, hey, it turns out most of us want flood control, spaceflight, whatever. But it’s up to the Executive to decide in detail how that money gets spent, and where, because he’s not subject to the pressure to spend it all in one state, or district. At least, this is how it goes in the ideal sense.
The question is, do you have any reason to believe unelected bureucrats make better decisions than elected officials
Almost an irrelevant point, but the answer is: of course. Every “unelected” bureaucrat reports to the President. If he screws up, the President takes the hit. The buck stops there. No President can say, oh, I don’t know what those fools over in FEMA are doing, I’m not responsible for their screw-ups. Doesn’t work, as we know.
On the other hand, every elected Congressman can and usually does evade responsibility for the things Congress as a whole or the Federal agencies (run by the President, remember?) do. Gee, I voted against that bill, sorry. That tax cut or stimulus boondoggle or war with Iraq is Not My Fault. Gee, I can’t control the crazy way in which the President has interpreted our Authorization to Use Military Force, or FISA, or the Military Commission or Community Reinvestment Act — Guantanamo or the war in Afghanistan or rendition or the subprime meltdown is Not My Fault, really!
Heard any evasion of responsibility like that lately, hmm? Fact is, when you’re only one member of a vast committee, it’s much easier to evade responsibility for committee decisions than if you’re the “unelected” representative of one very visible, very elected President.
Wasteful spending is wasteful spending.
Alas, this is a popular but useless redefinition of what “pork” means. The advantage of my (the original) definition is that it’s objectively measureable. Democrat and Republican, we can all agree on what is “pork” if it’s defined to be unsolicited targeted additions to a Federal agency budget.
With your definition, it’s hopeless. What, pray, is “wasteful” and what is not? As a Democrat, I say spending on F-22s is “wasteful” — the Cold War is over, after all! — and spending on Federal funding of a mandate that all pre-school teachers be members of the teachers’ union is valuable investment in quality education. You Republicans are just dipshits to have it the other way around. As a Florida Congressman, I think ARES is a useful investment in our future, including jobs for the great state of Florida, while you dumfuks representing Mojave and Long Beach and Texas alt-space private firms hungering after COTS money are just interested in “waste.” Et cetera. Defining “pork” as “wasteful spending” just means that you’ve converted a practical political argument into a theological argument that can never ever be settled or even usefully addressed.
Nothing says they must defer to the Imperial Presidency on the details.
Well, nothing except their good sense and the good sense of the Supreme Court, which is responsible for drawing the exact dividing line between legislation and execution. In principle Congress could legislate the exact engineering design of the next American spacecraft, down to the last solder joint. Wouldn’t be a tip-top idea, though, would it?
Madison did expect us to use our actual brains in interpreting his Constitution, you know.
First of all, every official in the Executive Branch executes the will of the President,
Laugh. Do you think Valerie Plame and her hubby were executing the will of George W. Bush?
Okay, you have less than zero knowledge of how government works. 🙂
I suggest you rent a copy of “Yes, Minister” and watch it.
the important point here is that the President is elected by the entire nation. He is, therefore, presumed to be able to best balance the needs of Louisiana for flood protection against the needs of Florida for keeping NASA jobs
How does being “elected by an entire nation” confer such magic godlike powers on him?
But it’s up to the Executive to decide in detail how that money gets spent, and where,
Please quote the section of the Constitution where you find this stated.
You quoted the Office of Management and Budget, which is not the same as the Founding Fathers. In fact, I suspect most of the Founding Fathers would be apalled at how much power OMB (and the President) have today. (George Washington turned down the chance to become king, yet the modern US President arguably has more power than the British monarch of Washington’s day.)
> The question is, do you have any reason to believe unelected bureucrats make better decisions than elected officials
Almost an irrelevant point, but the answer is: of course. Every “unelected” bureaucrat reports to the President.
Reporting to the President does not automatically make a person more competent than reporting to a member of Congress.
If he screws up, the President takes the hit. The buck stops there. No President can say, oh, I don’t know what those fools over in FEMA are doing, I’m not responsible for their screw-ups. Doesn’t work, as we know.
It does work, quite frequently. Presidents screw up and escape responsibility all the time. Don’t be confused by a sign that one President made up for his desk.
Take Bush, for example. He vastly increased Federal spending on education and harmed American education in the process but was never held responsible for it.
Or Kennedy. He got elected by campaigning on the basis of a “missile gap” that didn’t exist. Then he left men to die on the beach at the Bay of Pigs, and his popularity was in the sewers. So, he announced a program to beat the Russians to the Moon and all was forgiven.
You seem to be confusing the President with God.
Alas, this is a popular but useless redefinition of what “pork” means. The advantage of my (the original) definition is that it’s objectively measureable.
Your definition is not “the original.”
Go back and read the Grace Commission report or the speeches of Ronald Reagan, who campaigned against pork long before OMB and John McCain redefined the word.
Democrat and Republican, we can all agree on what is “pork” if it’s defined to be unsolicited targeted additions to a Federal agency budget.
No, Carl, we do not all agree.
Big-spending Democrats and Republicans may all agree. That’s why I don’t vote for McCain or Obama. I still agree with Ronald Reagan. Federal agencies do not have a right to every dollar they want — no matter what George W. Bush and Barack Obama think.
As Reagan said, “It’s time we reduced the federal budget and left the family budget alone.”
With your definition, it’s hopeless. What, pray, is “wasteful” and what is not? As a Democrat, I say spending on F-22s is “wasteful” — the Cold War is over, after all!
Hopeless??? Surprise, Carl, I may not be a Democrat but I agree with you. The F-22 is over-designed and over-engineered for today’s battlefield. Trying to make one airplane perform every mission is never cost-effective. (Although, we’ve arguably gone so far down the road on the F-22 that it makes sense to continue buying them now. Besides, the procurement process is so badly broken that any replacement is likely to have similar problems.)
Defining “pork” as “wasteful spending” just means that you’ve converted a practical political argument into a theological argument that can never ever be settled or even usefully addressed.
You’re entitled to your opinion, Carl, but you are not entitled to ascribe your opinion to “the Founding Fathers.”
Thomas Jefferson said the goal of good government was to prevent men from harming one another and leave them otherwise alone. He did not believe that definition to be useless.
The Founding Fathers, remember, fought a war with England largely over taxes, and the taxes they were complaining about were small compared to what Americans pay today. Clearly, they did not believe Americans had an obligation to fund every program civil servants asked for in their annual budget requests. Indeed, the idea of maintaining millions of civil servants would have been anathema to them.
Well, nothing except their good sense and the good sense of the Supreme Court
Sorry, but “good sense” and “Supreme Court” do not belong in the same sentence, which is responsible for drawing the exact dividing line between legislation and execution. 🙂
And if you read the Constitution, you’ll discover that it does not give the Supreme Court the power to draw dividing lines between the executive and legislature. That was the result of a power grab by an early Supreme Court Justice.
No, he was not held accountable for his actions, either.
In principle Congress could legislate the exact engineering design of the next American spacecraft, down to the last solder joint. Wouldn’t be a tip-top idea, though, would it?
It wouldn’t necessarily be worse than what Mike Griffin has “legislated,” but of course no one was advocating that.
Nice strawman you’ve got there. You might just take best of show. 🙂
Carl, Merriam-Webster defines pork as “government funds, jobs, or favors distributed by politicians to gain political advantage.”
They do not distinguish between politicians in the legislative branch and those in the executive branch.
Egad, Ed. This is going to overflow, so let’s restrict things a bit. If I don’t address everything you said, it’s not because I can’t, ‘kay? If there’s some bit I miss you think is key, say so and I’ll let fly.
A few bits I’d like to emphasize: first, I think you confuse the exception with the rule. The fact that there are rogues amongst the 2 million Federal employees who do not faithfully execute the will of the President say zip about whether they mostly do, and whether the mechanism generally responds to his direction, and, hence, is accountable to the electorate in the next Presidential election.
I say it does. No amount of isolated anecdotal evidence will contradict that. You need to present evidence that the Executive Branch in general does not reflect the will of the President. Fire away.
Second, I assert that accountability in a republic is de facto (whatever the theory is) considerably diffused, to the point of near absence, in a massive district-anchored legislature such as we have. There are plenty of cases where a single Presidential policy choice has brought down a President (Vietnam – Johnson, Watergate -Nixon, Depression – Hoover, Iran hostages – Carter, Panic of 1837 – Van Buren). The accountability may be a bit sporadic, in the sense that it’s hard to predict which policy decision will catch the public’s attention, and sometimes the accountability is unreasonable, e.g. it’s probably unfair to blame Hoover for the Crash, but there’s no doubt it’s there. There’s no doubt that when the President makes policy decisions, or when his “unelected” appointees execute — or fail to execute, cf. “Heck of a job, Brownie” — certain policies, the President puts his political survival on the line.
On the other hand, I invite you to show me any substantial trend of Congressmen or Senators paying personal consequences for decisions and policies made by Congress as a whole. Congressthings certainly lose their jobs if they commit personal transgressions, like boinking pages or whatnot, but they generally do not pay any price for legislation passed, or not passed, by Congress in general. The responsibilty is just too diffuse. It’s too hard to pin the action of the entire body onto one guy, who will explain he’s just representing his district, and not really expected except in some vague sentimental sense to represent the entire nation.
Indeed, since often enough representing the nation requires balancing the needs of different sections, we expect individual Congressman to sometimes act against clear national interests, if they conflict with the interests of their constituents. No Louisiana Congressman would be re-elected if he failed to press hard for Federal funding of New Orleans levies, even if Federal funding of Oregon Coast Guard were obviously a more pressing national priority. We expect this, just like we expect a lawyer to zealously represent his obviously-guilty client, and constituents would not punish his failure to act in the national interests. This leads to well-known problems, like how to close unneeded military bases, but I digress.
To be sure, people blame “Congress” as a whole for acting or failing to act. But only very rarely does that actually translate to throwing the bums out, including your bum. Most of the time, it’s just blowing off steam, like complaining about the weather, and people expect real solutions to come from someone more nationally accountable, like the President. This is to a great extent why any general fondness for solutions from government must inevitably translate into inflating the Imperial Presidency. No central government has ever been powerful, efficient and effective without being concentrated in one Caesar. Sad fact o’ life.
Finally, I’m not justifying my definition of pork on epistemological or original intent grounds, because as an empiricist I couldn’t care less about them. I’m justifying it on practical grounds. A definition is needed on which politicians can generally agree, something hard, measurable, objective. Otherwise, it’s useless.
Thomas Jefferson is a case in point, actually. The man had lovely sounding prose about the theoretical ideal of government, but he left undefined so many key terms (e.g. what is “harm”, what is being “left alone?” Reasonable men may disagree, profoundly) that as a practical executive, or even framer of government, he was, frankly, nearly useless. He was a poor actual governor and President, and he contributed little to the practical machinery of government. That was left to more practical men, such as Madison, Hamilton, Washington, who were less soaring in their rhetoric, but actually got stuff done.
Really, I wish we could define pork as “waste” and just ban it. I similarly wish we could make evil illegal and simply incarcerate all evil-doers, and make the world a wonderful place. Alas, the beautiful project founders on the niggling details of definition. Where do we go to buy an evil-meter? What are the circuits in a reliable waste-meter?
The fact that there are rogues amongst the 2 million Federal employees who do not faithfully execute the will of the President say zip about whether they mostly do, and whether the mechanism generally responds to his direction
History shows you’re wrong, Carl. The natural impulse of bureaucrats is to pursue their own agenda regardless of who is in office. They do not “generally respond” to whoever is in office, they expect whoever is in office to respond to them, and if the President tries to go in a direction they don’t like, they will resist. Look up Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
You need to present evidence that the Executive Branch in general does not reflect the will of the President. Fire away.
Is that a trick question?
Just look at the history of the Reagan Administration and the way the bureaucracy resisted his attempts at reform.
The fact that they’re willing to “follow” a President who’s going in a direction they like proves very little.
Which is irrelevant to the point you’re arguing, though. Even if all bureaucrats were as loyal as cocker spaniels, that would not prove that their budget requests are always wise. Obedience and wisdom are too different things. Just ask anyone who owns a cocker spaniel.
In another post, you challenged the notion that government planners are able to make better medical decisions than you and your physician. Fine, now apply that same skepticism to areas beyond medicine. Why do you imagine that same government planner is more qualified to decide how you should spend your income than you are?
Congressthings certainly lose their jobs if they commit personal transgressions, like boinking pages or whatnot, but they generally do not pay any price for legislation passed, or not passed, by Congress in general
They pay the price far more often than the unelected bureaucrats who make the funding requests you accept without question. Civil servants can’t be voted out of office and are rarely fired. But again, that’s irrelevant. Even if civil servants were dismissed right and left, it would not prove that they have godlike judgement.
No central government has ever been powerful, efficient and effective without being concentrated in one Caesar.
So? Why do you assume I want a “powerful government,” Carl? I believe in limited — as did the Founding Fathers you refer to. I don’t believe the government needs to “mandate that all pre-school teachers be members of the teachers’ union.” Let the teachers decide for themselves. “That government governs best that governs least.”
No Louisiana Congressman would be re-elected if he failed to press hard for Federal funding of New Orleans levies, even if Federal funding of Oregon Coast Guard were obviously a more pressing national priority.
And no Oregon Coast Guardsman will fail to advocate more spending for the Coast Guard in his area. Once again, why do you assume that’s good spending just because doesn’t stand for election?
Why does Oregon even need a Coast Guard? Oregon is not in any danger of invasion. The Coast Guard’s primary jobs in Oregon are emergency services and towing boats that run out of gas. Those are jobs Ronald Reagan wanted to turn over to private industry. They Coast Guard didn’t “faithfully execute the will of the President” as you predict. They opposed him. What does your “empiricism” say about that?
He was a poor actual governor and President, and he contributed little to the practical machinery of government.
Poor by your standards, perhaps. Again, I don’t want a big “powerful” government. I’ll take Jefferson over Bush or Obama any day. Nor will I change my mind even if some bureaucrat decides to erase his face from Mt. Rushmore and replace it with Barak Obama’s.
If you “couldn’t care less” about original intent, fine, but don’t ascribe your ideas to the Founding Fathers (who in fact believed quite the opposite).
Also, Carl, you fail to consider the fact that bureaucrats in the executive branch may not always agree with one another.
Mike Griffin thought Ares should get more money. OMB disagreed. Now, the Senate is apparently adding money for Ares. Is that pork because it was not requested by OMB, or is it worthwhile spending because it was requested by Mike Griffin?
Or maybe we need to consider spending based on its merits and not merely who requested it?
Personally, Ed, I was correcting Jim’s argument that the article was ridiculous. The article is accurate using Obama’s OMB’s definition of Pork. If Obama is going to say there is no pork, then he ought to change OMB’s definition (essentially the point Carl’s trying to make). For certain, Jim’s assertion that the article is ridiculous is moronic, but then it is Jim. Jim’s comments about specifics in spending has nothing to do with the article.
As for your non sequitur theories on pork, I’m not surprised you would turn a discussion about AP fact checking the President and turn it into some sophomoric rant. It’s not like either Carl or me disagrees with you about government largess. But you can’t help making an ass of yourself by arguing that everyone must consider things exactly the way you do. I’ve never met anyone like you who so enjoys annoying people, who otherwise would agree with you. It really is a dumbass talent you have there.
It’s not like either Carl or me disagrees with you about government largess.
Sorry to interrupt your mental breakdown, Leland, but if you read Carl’s posts and mine, you would know he does disagree with me about the appropriateness of most government largess.
Now, you may return to your regularly scheduled Valium. 🙂
Carl, let me give some specific examples.
Funding to detect Earth-approaching asteroids was not originally requested by NASA. It was forced on NASA by members of Congress at the request of members of the public. (Myself included.) So, it is “pork” by your definition.
Money to maintain the cattle pasture at JSC, on the other hand, would not be “pork” by your definition because it is something requested by NASA employees.
The former might potentially save all life on planet Earth. The latter merely provides NASA with some mooing lawn ornaments.
As someone who prides himself on empiricism and practicality, do you not see a problem with a definition that considers an ornamental cattle herd to be more important than studying a potential global catastrophe?
Carl,
Let me help you with facts, because what Ed is saying is BS.
When Johnson Space Center requests money to maintain their cattle herd, do you imagine that’s simply because keeping cattle is in the national interest?
The CCISD FFA maintains the heard. Money for the heard came from the TLBAA, which is not a member of the Executive Branch. A case could be made that JSC donated the land via a unilateral decision made by the JSC director. George Abbey will be happy to take the credit. But a more indepth review will find that land was also provided for the building of a CCISD middle school and City of Houston fire station. All was approved by Congress, although via a rider to another bill. Call it pork if you wish.
I’m sorry the meds haven’t worked, Leland.
I congratulate you on your superior knowledge of JSC’s bull.
I’m still waiting for Carl to explain the practical reasons why that is a good use of the taxpayer’s money and looking for asteroids that might destroy civilization is not.
Carl, you may be happy to learn that the stimulus bill does not meet your technical definition of “pork.”
Although, why you should be happy for that remains a mystery. As the Washington Times reports, it makes little difference whether the spending meets that definition or not, and even the earmarks that were removed will probably still be funded:
President Obama boasts that the stimulus plan contains no earmarks because Congress technically did not use the earmark process for lawmakers to request and drop in specific spending items.
…. no matter how hard lawmakers argue that they technically lived up to their pledge to keep specific projects from being listed in the bill, there is little stopping the federal money from going to those projects after the legislation passes and federal and state agencies begin deciding where to spend their newfound dollars.
The AP article is ridiculous. “Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork – tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.”
Would the AP prefer that the projects not actually be located anywhere, and not benefit anyone? How exactly would that work? By this standard all government spending is pork.
To on the one hand complain that the stimulus spending is too slow, and on the other that it benefits existing needs and projects, boggles the mind.
OMB’s definition:
OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
From the article:
For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill.,
Jim, you misunderstand the definition of pork. Ordinary, non-pork spending works this way:
Congress: Yo, Executive! Here’s a new law, providing for a Department of Lunar Colonies, which should develop economical transportation facilities and transship all those malcontents who voted against Our Great Glorious Leader’s
Penis PillStimulus Package. Get busy.Prez: Gotcha. One moment please. Hello? IRS? Send me over a list of prominent Democrats without tax evasion problems. Oh? Well, who is he? OK. ring, ring Congratulations, Mr. Secretary. Get me a budget by this afternoon.
Newly-confirmed Secretary of Lunie Affairs: Congress, here’s our budget request for next year. This is how much money we need to do what you want us to do. If you want to know exactly what we’re doing, you can read the 900-page appendix.
Congress: Huh? Oh, money? Here, have some.
That’s it. Notice that Congress doesn’t normally read the 900-page appendix, and certainly doesn’t micromanage it. It becomes pork when the last exchange changes, like so:
Congress: Huh? Oh, money? Here, have some. You sure you don’t want more?
Sec’y: Quite sure, thanks.
Congress: No, wait. You sure you don’t need an extra $2 billion to fund….er, hold on….shuffles notes, finds letter from Prominent Democratic Donor…ah!….to fund the PDD Center for Lunar Diversity, located in Rapid City?
Sec’y: Er…I don’t think so.
Congress: No? Maybe you need $2 billion less than your request, then?
Sec’y: Um, no. Gosh! Now you mention it, we do need a Center for Lunar Diversity, and it does need to be located in Rapid City, 500 miles from our nearest facility. Thanks for reminding me!
Congress: My pleasure.
There’s a reason the Founders left the detailed implementation of the law to the Executive, a wholly separate branch of government that is elected on a national basis (i.e. does not serve any one restricted constituency, like a state or district). They knew (from bitter experience) that Congress, if given the executive as well as legislative function, would degenerate into a passel of special interest whores, who would spend the public money on whatever suited their individual fancies, district by district.
Carl, I think that’s a fantasy world. If Congressman A votes for a plan to build more bridges, she knows full well which bridge projects in her district are near the top of the priority list, and therefore likely to be funded. An earmark gives the targeting the force of law, but it isn’t as if no one knows where the money is going otherwise.
It would be ridiculous to vote for funds to quickly convert a coal plant to sequester carbon without knowing that there’s a candidate plant that satisfies the requirements of the project. Especially given the need to spend this money quickly, the fact that we know where it’s going is a feature, not a bug.
Notice that Congress doesn’t normally read the 900-page appendix, and certainly doesn’t micromanage it. It becomes pork when the last exchange changes
So, it’s pork if an elected official micromanages it but not pork if an unelected offical does?
*Of course* OMB’s definition says all spending requested by OMB is good and any changes made by Congress are bad. What else would you expect?
And of course, pols like John McCain agree with that definition, since it allows them to claim they are “against pork” while still voting for lots and lots of spending.
The question is, do you have any reason to believe unelected bureucrats make better decisions than elected officials? Do you think civil servants are never influenced by local or other interests? When Johnson Space Center requests money to maintain their cattle herd, do you imagine that’s simply because keeping cattle is in the national interest?
Wasteful spending is wasteful spending. The fact that it’s requested by a (supposedly infallible) bureaucrat doesn’t change that.
There’s a reason the Founders left the detailed implementation of the law to the Executive,
The Founders gave the Executive branch power to enforce the law. They gave Congress the power of the purse. Nothing says they must defer to the Imperial Presidency on the details. Robert Heinlein pointed out that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to delegate its authority to make laws (even if you call them “regulations” instead of laws).
Jim, you are living in a fantasy world if you think generic Congressman Able knows all that information. They’re only human, you know. The bulk of the time, they don’t even read the bills on which they vote, and they have very little knowledge of where the money goes exactly.
Don’t believe it? You try it. Go get the budget of some random Federal agency, something smallish like NOAA or NASA, not DoD or DoE or HHS. Now figure out exactly where that money went last year, and how much was spent within 50 miles of your home address. Oh, and don’t take more than 90 minutes to do it over the next 3 days, because that’s about as much time as you can spare from all your other duties as a Senator or Representative.
Use your head. If you work in a moderate-sized firm, with say $50 million in sales, does every member of your board know where every dollar went? Can they even nail it down by department to the nearest $10,000? Hell no. Now translate to a $2 trillion firm, with 2 million employees, and you’re one of 435 “board” members. Hopeless. This is, indeed, one of the reasons why lobbyists have so much power. They do that kind of research for the poor Congressman, and summarize it all in a nice neat one-page action statement. Vote for this bill, or introduce this amendment, and the following Good Things will happen, followed by a small honorarium to your re-election fund. In truth, they are a small army of technically unpaid Congressional staff research help who take the load of knowing all the detail off the Congressman’s back. Alas, they have a certain interest in the outcome.
So, it’s pork if an elected official micromanages it but not pork if an unelected offical does?
Don’t be dense, Ed. First of all, every official in the Executive Branch executes the will of the President, and only that will (ideally), and, you’ll recall, the President is very much an elected official. Indeed, the important point here is that the President is elected by the entire nation. He is, therefore, presumed to be able to best balance the needs of Louisiana for flood protection against the needs of Florida for keeping NASA jobs, and make the difficult choices necessary in a world of limited resources.
By contrast, the Louisiana Congressman has zero interest in protecting the interests of Florida voters, and the Florida Congressman has none in protecting the interest of Louisiana homeowners. Not surprisingly, they will each very willingly target money raised nationally to support their own particular district. It’s called “bringing home the bacon.” Surely you’ve actually read your local Congressman’s newsletter to his constituents, in which he boasts about all the Federal tax money he caused to be spent in your district. Clearly he views that as his major job. Equally clearly, his ability to think nationally when it comes to spending the nation’s money is pretty compromised.
This, as I said, is why the Founders assigned Congress the role of setting national goals and priorities. They’re perfectly capable of getting together and saying, hey, it turns out most of us want flood control, spaceflight, whatever. But it’s up to the Executive to decide in detail how that money gets spent, and where, because he’s not subject to the pressure to spend it all in one state, or district. At least, this is how it goes in the ideal sense.
The question is, do you have any reason to believe unelected bureucrats make better decisions than elected officials
Almost an irrelevant point, but the answer is: of course. Every “unelected” bureaucrat reports to the President. If he screws up, the President takes the hit. The buck stops there. No President can say, oh, I don’t know what those fools over in FEMA are doing, I’m not responsible for their screw-ups. Doesn’t work, as we know.
On the other hand, every elected Congressman can and usually does evade responsibility for the things Congress as a whole or the Federal agencies (run by the President, remember?) do. Gee, I voted against that bill, sorry. That tax cut or stimulus boondoggle or war with Iraq is Not My Fault. Gee, I can’t control the crazy way in which the President has interpreted our Authorization to Use Military Force, or FISA, or the Military Commission or Community Reinvestment Act — Guantanamo or the war in Afghanistan or rendition or the subprime meltdown is Not My Fault, really!
Heard any evasion of responsibility like that lately, hmm? Fact is, when you’re only one member of a vast committee, it’s much easier to evade responsibility for committee decisions than if you’re the “unelected” representative of one very visible, very elected President.
Wasteful spending is wasteful spending.
Alas, this is a popular but useless redefinition of what “pork” means. The advantage of my (the original) definition is that it’s objectively measureable. Democrat and Republican, we can all agree on what is “pork” if it’s defined to be unsolicited targeted additions to a Federal agency budget.
With your definition, it’s hopeless. What, pray, is “wasteful” and what is not? As a Democrat, I say spending on F-22s is “wasteful” — the Cold War is over, after all! — and spending on Federal funding of a mandate that all pre-school teachers be members of the teachers’ union is valuable investment in quality education. You Republicans are just dipshits to have it the other way around. As a Florida Congressman, I think ARES is a useful investment in our future, including jobs for the great state of Florida, while you dumfuks representing Mojave and Long Beach and Texas alt-space private firms hungering after COTS money are just interested in “waste.” Et cetera. Defining “pork” as “wasteful spending” just means that you’ve converted a practical political argument into a theological argument that can never ever be settled or even usefully addressed.
Nothing says they must defer to the Imperial Presidency on the details.
Well, nothing except their good sense and the good sense of the Supreme Court, which is responsible for drawing the exact dividing line between legislation and execution. In principle Congress could legislate the exact engineering design of the next American spacecraft, down to the last solder joint. Wouldn’t be a tip-top idea, though, would it?
Madison did expect us to use our actual brains in interpreting his Constitution, you know.
First of all, every official in the Executive Branch executes the will of the President,
Laugh. Do you think Valerie Plame and her hubby were executing the will of George W. Bush?
Okay, you have less than zero knowledge of how government works. 🙂
I suggest you rent a copy of “Yes, Minister” and watch it.
the important point here is that the President is elected by the entire nation. He is, therefore, presumed to be able to best balance the needs of Louisiana for flood protection against the needs of Florida for keeping NASA jobs
How does being “elected by an entire nation” confer such magic godlike powers on him?
But it’s up to the Executive to decide in detail how that money gets spent, and where,
Please quote the section of the Constitution where you find this stated.
You quoted the Office of Management and Budget, which is not the same as the Founding Fathers. In fact, I suspect most of the Founding Fathers would be apalled at how much power OMB (and the President) have today. (George Washington turned down the chance to become king, yet the modern US President arguably has more power than the British monarch of Washington’s day.)
> The question is, do you have any reason to believe unelected bureucrats make better decisions than elected officials
Almost an irrelevant point, but the answer is: of course. Every “unelected” bureaucrat reports to the President.
Reporting to the President does not automatically make a person more competent than reporting to a member of Congress.
If he screws up, the President takes the hit. The buck stops there. No President can say, oh, I don’t know what those fools over in FEMA are doing, I’m not responsible for their screw-ups. Doesn’t work, as we know.
It does work, quite frequently. Presidents screw up and escape responsibility all the time. Don’t be confused by a sign that one President made up for his desk.
Take Bush, for example. He vastly increased Federal spending on education and harmed American education in the process but was never held responsible for it.
Or Kennedy. He got elected by campaigning on the basis of a “missile gap” that didn’t exist. Then he left men to die on the beach at the Bay of Pigs, and his popularity was in the sewers. So, he announced a program to beat the Russians to the Moon and all was forgiven.
You seem to be confusing the President with God.
Alas, this is a popular but useless redefinition of what “pork” means. The advantage of my (the original) definition is that it’s objectively measureable.
Your definition is not “the original.”
Go back and read the Grace Commission report or the speeches of Ronald Reagan, who campaigned against pork long before OMB and John McCain redefined the word.
Democrat and Republican, we can all agree on what is “pork” if it’s defined to be unsolicited targeted additions to a Federal agency budget.
No, Carl, we do not all agree.
Big-spending Democrats and Republicans may all agree. That’s why I don’t vote for McCain or Obama. I still agree with Ronald Reagan. Federal agencies do not have a right to every dollar they want — no matter what George W. Bush and Barack Obama think.
As Reagan said, “It’s time we reduced the federal budget and left the family budget alone.”
With your definition, it’s hopeless. What, pray, is “wasteful” and what is not? As a Democrat, I say spending on F-22s is “wasteful” — the Cold War is over, after all!
Hopeless??? Surprise, Carl, I may not be a Democrat but I agree with you. The F-22 is over-designed and over-engineered for today’s battlefield. Trying to make one airplane perform every mission is never cost-effective. (Although, we’ve arguably gone so far down the road on the F-22 that it makes sense to continue buying them now. Besides, the procurement process is so badly broken that any replacement is likely to have similar problems.)
Defining “pork” as “wasteful spending” just means that you’ve converted a practical political argument into a theological argument that can never ever be settled or even usefully addressed.
You’re entitled to your opinion, Carl, but you are not entitled to ascribe your opinion to “the Founding Fathers.”
Thomas Jefferson said the goal of good government was to prevent men from harming one another and leave them otherwise alone. He did not believe that definition to be useless.
The Founding Fathers, remember, fought a war with England largely over taxes, and the taxes they were complaining about were small compared to what Americans pay today. Clearly, they did not believe Americans had an obligation to fund every program civil servants asked for in their annual budget requests. Indeed, the idea of maintaining millions of civil servants would have been anathema to them.
Well, nothing except their good sense and the good sense of the Supreme Court
Sorry, but “good sense” and “Supreme Court” do not belong in the same sentence, which is responsible for drawing the exact dividing line between legislation and execution. 🙂
And if you read the Constitution, you’ll discover that it does not give the Supreme Court the power to draw dividing lines between the executive and legislature. That was the result of a power grab by an early Supreme Court Justice.
No, he was not held accountable for his actions, either.
In principle Congress could legislate the exact engineering design of the next American spacecraft, down to the last solder joint. Wouldn’t be a tip-top idea, though, would it?
It wouldn’t necessarily be worse than what Mike Griffin has “legislated,” but of course no one was advocating that.
Nice strawman you’ve got there. You might just take best of show. 🙂
Carl, Merriam-Webster defines pork as “government funds, jobs, or favors distributed by politicians to gain political advantage.”
They do not distinguish between politicians in the legislative branch and those in the executive branch.
Egad, Ed. This is going to overflow, so let’s restrict things a bit. If I don’t address everything you said, it’s not because I can’t, ‘kay? If there’s some bit I miss you think is key, say so and I’ll let fly.
A few bits I’d like to emphasize: first, I think you confuse the exception with the rule. The fact that there are rogues amongst the 2 million Federal employees who do not faithfully execute the will of the President say zip about whether they mostly do, and whether the mechanism generally responds to his direction, and, hence, is accountable to the electorate in the next Presidential election.
I say it does. No amount of isolated anecdotal evidence will contradict that. You need to present evidence that the Executive Branch in general does not reflect the will of the President. Fire away.
Second, I assert that accountability in a republic is de facto (whatever the theory is) considerably diffused, to the point of near absence, in a massive district-anchored legislature such as we have. There are plenty of cases where a single Presidential policy choice has brought down a President (Vietnam – Johnson, Watergate -Nixon, Depression – Hoover, Iran hostages – Carter, Panic of 1837 – Van Buren). The accountability may be a bit sporadic, in the sense that it’s hard to predict which policy decision will catch the public’s attention, and sometimes the accountability is unreasonable, e.g. it’s probably unfair to blame Hoover for the Crash, but there’s no doubt it’s there. There’s no doubt that when the President makes policy decisions, or when his “unelected” appointees execute — or fail to execute, cf. “Heck of a job, Brownie” — certain policies, the President puts his political survival on the line.
On the other hand, I invite you to show me any substantial trend of Congressmen or Senators paying personal consequences for decisions and policies made by Congress as a whole. Congressthings certainly lose their jobs if they commit personal transgressions, like boinking pages or whatnot, but they generally do not pay any price for legislation passed, or not passed, by Congress in general. The responsibilty is just too diffuse. It’s too hard to pin the action of the entire body onto one guy, who will explain he’s just representing his district, and not really expected except in some vague sentimental sense to represent the entire nation.
Indeed, since often enough representing the nation requires balancing the needs of different sections, we expect individual Congressman to sometimes act against clear national interests, if they conflict with the interests of their constituents. No Louisiana Congressman would be re-elected if he failed to press hard for Federal funding of New Orleans levies, even if Federal funding of Oregon Coast Guard were obviously a more pressing national priority. We expect this, just like we expect a lawyer to zealously represent his obviously-guilty client, and constituents would not punish his failure to act in the national interests. This leads to well-known problems, like how to close unneeded military bases, but I digress.
To be sure, people blame “Congress” as a whole for acting or failing to act. But only very rarely does that actually translate to throwing the bums out, including your bum. Most of the time, it’s just blowing off steam, like complaining about the weather, and people expect real solutions to come from someone more nationally accountable, like the President. This is to a great extent why any general fondness for solutions from government must inevitably translate into inflating the Imperial Presidency. No central government has ever been powerful, efficient and effective without being concentrated in one Caesar. Sad fact o’ life.
Finally, I’m not justifying my definition of pork on epistemological or original intent grounds, because as an empiricist I couldn’t care less about them. I’m justifying it on practical grounds. A definition is needed on which politicians can generally agree, something hard, measurable, objective. Otherwise, it’s useless.
Thomas Jefferson is a case in point, actually. The man had lovely sounding prose about the theoretical ideal of government, but he left undefined so many key terms (e.g. what is “harm”, what is being “left alone?” Reasonable men may disagree, profoundly) that as a practical executive, or even framer of government, he was, frankly, nearly useless. He was a poor actual governor and President, and he contributed little to the practical machinery of government. That was left to more practical men, such as Madison, Hamilton, Washington, who were less soaring in their rhetoric, but actually got stuff done.
Really, I wish we could define pork as “waste” and just ban it. I similarly wish we could make evil illegal and simply incarcerate all evil-doers, and make the world a wonderful place. Alas, the beautiful project founders on the niggling details of definition. Where do we go to buy an evil-meter? What are the circuits in a reliable waste-meter?
The fact that there are rogues amongst the 2 million Federal employees who do not faithfully execute the will of the President say zip about whether they mostly do, and whether the mechanism generally responds to his direction
History shows you’re wrong, Carl. The natural impulse of bureaucrats is to pursue their own agenda regardless of who is in office. They do not “generally respond” to whoever is in office, they expect whoever is in office to respond to them, and if the President tries to go in a direction they don’t like, they will resist. Look up Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
You need to present evidence that the Executive Branch in general does not reflect the will of the President. Fire away.
Is that a trick question?
Just look at the history of the Reagan Administration and the way the bureaucracy resisted his attempts at reform.
The fact that they’re willing to “follow” a President who’s going in a direction they like proves very little.
Which is irrelevant to the point you’re arguing, though. Even if all bureaucrats were as loyal as cocker spaniels, that would not prove that their budget requests are always wise. Obedience and wisdom are too different things. Just ask anyone who owns a cocker spaniel.
In another post, you challenged the notion that government planners are able to make better medical decisions than you and your physician. Fine, now apply that same skepticism to areas beyond medicine. Why do you imagine that same government planner is more qualified to decide how you should spend your income than you are?
Congressthings certainly lose their jobs if they commit personal transgressions, like boinking pages or whatnot, but they generally do not pay any price for legislation passed, or not passed, by Congress in general
They pay the price far more often than the unelected bureaucrats who make the funding requests you accept without question. Civil servants can’t be voted out of office and are rarely fired. But again, that’s irrelevant. Even if civil servants were dismissed right and left, it would not prove that they have godlike judgement.
No central government has ever been powerful, efficient and effective without being concentrated in one Caesar.
So? Why do you assume I want a “powerful government,” Carl? I believe in limited — as did the Founding Fathers you refer to. I don’t believe the government needs to “mandate that all pre-school teachers be members of the teachers’ union.” Let the teachers decide for themselves. “That government governs best that governs least.”
No Louisiana Congressman would be re-elected if he failed to press hard for Federal funding of New Orleans levies, even if Federal funding of Oregon Coast Guard were obviously a more pressing national priority.
And no Oregon Coast Guardsman will fail to advocate more spending for the Coast Guard in his area. Once again, why do you assume that’s good spending just because doesn’t stand for election?
Why does Oregon even need a Coast Guard? Oregon is not in any danger of invasion. The Coast Guard’s primary jobs in Oregon are emergency services and towing boats that run out of gas. Those are jobs Ronald Reagan wanted to turn over to private industry. They Coast Guard didn’t “faithfully execute the will of the President” as you predict. They opposed him. What does your “empiricism” say about that?
He was a poor actual governor and President, and he contributed little to the practical machinery of government.
Poor by your standards, perhaps. Again, I don’t want a big “powerful” government. I’ll take Jefferson over Bush or Obama any day. Nor will I change my mind even if some bureaucrat decides to erase his face from Mt. Rushmore and replace it with Barak Obama’s.
If you “couldn’t care less” about original intent, fine, but don’t ascribe your ideas to the Founding Fathers (who in fact believed quite the opposite).
Also, Carl, you fail to consider the fact that bureaucrats in the executive branch may not always agree with one another.
Mike Griffin thought Ares should get more money. OMB disagreed. Now, the Senate is apparently adding money for Ares. Is that pork because it was not requested by OMB, or is it worthwhile spending because it was requested by Mike Griffin?
Or maybe we need to consider spending based on its merits and not merely who requested it?
Personally, Ed, I was correcting Jim’s argument that the article was ridiculous. The article is accurate using Obama’s OMB’s definition of Pork. If Obama is going to say there is no pork, then he ought to change OMB’s definition (essentially the point Carl’s trying to make). For certain, Jim’s assertion that the article is ridiculous is moronic, but then it is Jim. Jim’s comments about specifics in spending has nothing to do with the article.
As for your non sequitur theories on pork, I’m not surprised you would turn a discussion about AP fact checking the President and turn it into some sophomoric rant. It’s not like either Carl or me disagrees with you about government largess. But you can’t help making an ass of yourself by arguing that everyone must consider things exactly the way you do. I’ve never met anyone like you who so enjoys annoying people, who otherwise would agree with you. It really is a dumbass talent you have there.
It’s not like either Carl or me disagrees with you about government largess.
Sorry to interrupt your mental breakdown, Leland, but if you read Carl’s posts and mine, you would know he does disagree with me about the appropriateness of most government largess.
Now, you may return to your regularly scheduled Valium. 🙂
Carl, let me give some specific examples.
Funding to detect Earth-approaching asteroids was not originally requested by NASA. It was forced on NASA by members of Congress at the request of members of the public. (Myself included.) So, it is “pork” by your definition.
Money to maintain the cattle pasture at JSC, on the other hand, would not be “pork” by your definition because it is something requested by NASA employees.
The former might potentially save all life on planet Earth. The latter merely provides NASA with some mooing lawn ornaments.
As someone who prides himself on empiricism and practicality, do you not see a problem with a definition that considers an ornamental cattle herd to be more important than studying a potential global catastrophe?
Carl,
Let me help you with facts, because what Ed is saying is BS.
When Johnson Space Center requests money to maintain their cattle herd, do you imagine that’s simply because keeping cattle is in the national interest?
The CCISD FFA maintains the heard. Money for the heard came from the TLBAA, which is not a member of the Executive Branch. A case could be made that JSC donated the land via a unilateral decision made by the JSC director. George Abbey will be happy to take the credit. But a more indepth review will find that land was also provided for the building of a CCISD middle school and City of Houston fire station. All was approved by Congress, although via a rider to another bill. Call it pork if you wish.
I’m sorry the meds haven’t worked, Leland.
I congratulate you on your superior knowledge of JSC’s bull.
I’m still waiting for Carl to explain the practical reasons why that is a good use of the taxpayer’s money and looking for asteroids that might destroy civilization is not.
Carl, you may be happy to learn that the stimulus bill does not meet your technical definition of “pork.”
Although, why you should be happy for that remains a mystery. As the Washington Times reports, it makes little difference whether the spending meets that definition or not, and even the earmarks that were removed will probably still be funded:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/earmark-less-bill-gives-pelosis-mouse-cookie/
President Obama boasts that the stimulus plan contains no earmarks because Congress technically did not use the earmark process for lawmakers to request and drop in specific spending items.
…. no matter how hard lawmakers argue that they technically lived up to their pledge to keep specific projects from being listed in the bill, there is little stopping the federal money from going to those projects after the legislation passes and federal and state agencies begin deciding where to spend their newfound dollars.