Is all pork bad?

Not all pork is bad, but plenty of it is. I see the four laning of the slowest evacuation road out of Florida as being a safety issue, and that is much different than the pork project of FEMA paying almost $7 million to replace the County Pier at Pier Park. Speaking of which, if FEMA is paying for that new pier, they cannot still charge a fee to enter the pier, can they? Other pork projects which I see as wasteful is FEMA replacing a bunch of sand on the beach, after it has been nourished by the County and State, then washed back out to see. Hope that doesn't strike to hard, but it's my thought. That is just a couple of many pricey local projects paid by the Fed Gov't, which are wasteful use of our hard earned tax dollars. Now multiple that times the needless projects found in every area of our country, and we could probably cut back on taxes quite a bit, and be no worse off. I don't think that FEMA sand will adhere to the beach any more than County and State sand. It all belongs to mother nature and she will distribute it wherever she sees fit.

IMO all pork is by definition bad. If it is a good project to help the community etc. it isn't called pork. If it is a waste of money benefitting a few (who usually end up to be major contributors) it's pork.

4 laning a road because of major safety issues, congestion, and its inadequacy in case of emergency doesn't fit the definition of pork (in my mind at least).

In my view, pork serves primarily to get a politician reelected. In the process, it frequently benefits special interests and/or diverts funds from projects that have broader public benefit.

4-Laning 331 serves the broad public interest in more ways than one. I believe that project would be a fine example of exactly what we hope government will do for us - serve the public interest in a way that can never be accomplished privately.

"Is all pork bad?"

Nutritionally, pork products are not bad for the human body as long as they are eaten in moderation. Pork can be high in protein and B-vitamins. Consumers should do their best to choose "lean cuts" of all meats, as to avoid unnecessary fat content and extract what would be considered an efficent amount of kilocalories in a calories to nutrients ratio. Consumers should always seek out foods that provide the most nutrients for the least amount of food energy so that they can maintain a diet below the recommended 2,000 to 2,500 kilocalorie daily intake.

Funny? But in my estimation, political pork is anything but.

In my view, pork serves primarily to get a politician reelected. In the process, it frequently benefits special interests and/or diverts funds from projects that have broader public benefit.

4-Laning 331 serves the broad public interest in more ways than one. I believe that project would be a fine example of exactly what we hope government will do for us - serve the public interest in a way that can never be accomplished privately.

But would you feel that way if you lived in Kansas and had never been to or desire to come to SoWal? What constitutes the broad public interest, a county with less than 50,000 people (less than 15,000 in Sowal) and the visiting population is probably around 2-3 million tops. See this is the problem I have is who decides and what criteria.

Not all pork is bad, but plenty of it is. I see the four laning of the slowest evacuation road out of Florida as being a safety issue, and that is much different than the pork project of FEMA paying almost $7 million to replace the County Pier at Pier Park. Speaking of which, if FEMA is paying for that new pier, they cannot still charge a fee to enter the pier, can they? Other pork projects which I see as wasteful is FEMA replacing a bunch of sand on the beach, after it has been nourished by the County and State, then washed back out to see. Hope that doesn't strike to hard, but it's my thought. That is just a couple of many pricey local projects paid by the Fed Gov't, which are wasteful use of our hard earned tax dollars. Now multiple that times the needless projects found in every area of our country, and we could probably cut back on taxes quite a bit, and be no worse off. I don't think that FEMA sand will adhere to the beach any more than County and State sand. It all belongs to mother nature and she will distribute it wherever she sees fit.

All good points since they are more germane to sowal, but how about comparisons. Should FEMA be covering the yearly costs of flood damages from inland states that live in flood plains near major rivers and rely on farming. FYI, until Katrina coastal residents had paid in more in insurance premiums than outgoing costs. On the other hand their is a net loss from inland flooding EVERY YEAR. How about forest fires? Did you know that we spend $5.93 per person per year on the federal level to fight forest fires?

My bigger point isn't FEMA because it is a program and not an earmark. It was whether or not people realize that in the eyes of the federal process all earmarks are considered pork.

IMO all pork is by definition bad. If it is a good project to help the community etc. it isn't called pork. If it is a waste of money benefitting a few (who usually end up to be major contributors) it's pork.

4 laning a road because of major safety issues, congestion, and its inadequacy in case of emergency doesn't fit the definition of pork (in my mind at least).

Not in the eyes of one presidential candidate, he has stated clearly that he is campaigning to end ALL earmarks so be careful what you wish for...

But would you feel that way if you lived in Kansas and had never been to or desire to come to SoWal?

Well, if you want to look at it that way, the only thing the Feds should fund is federal programs on a national scale. That cat is irretrievably out of the bag.

Without straying from the topic of public safety, I wouldn't personally begrudge a rural Kansas county, with 50,000 residents, a project to upgrade their tornado warning systems. And I'd hope they'd feel the same about a Walton County hurricane evacuation route upgrade.

There will always be someone who is a cheapskate, wants the money spent closer to his/her home, hates big city folk, wants to pay less taxes, or has some other reason to object.

If I was in Kansas or Montana and looking for gov't waste the 4 laning of 331 wouldn't even ping my radar.

IMO it's the kind of project that deserves gov't money, as it will markedly improve the lives of tens and hundreds of thousands of citizens - a RARE thing in all those porky gov't projects and campaign favors that benefit a few fat cats.

I definitely understand questioning the project's value to someone outside the area, but that's when I feel that a gov't project w/ similar benefits in that other geographic area keeps it all balanced.

As someone else stated, good, legitimate projects would be approved if they were a single item, rather than being included as pork in a bill like "emergency war funding." I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing if the ear marks WERE taken out. In fact, it might help the happy-spending Congress to tighten up on the wasteful spending.

Back to your question about living in Kansas. If I were a Congressman from Kansas, and it was pointed out to me the current evacuation problems of SoWal, I'd vote to fund the project. Currently, it takes something like 28 hours to evacuate SoWal, and evacuation has to be announced prior to a storms arrival. I think the bridges in WalCo close when wind speeds reach 35 mph. So, the EOC (Emergency Operations Center) has to account for the 28+ hours to get all the people off, when trying to determine when the wind speeds from the storm will reach 35 mph in WalCo, and they have to error on the side of caution. In 2007, two major Hurricanes went from a Tropical Disturbance to a Cat 3 Hurricane within 24 hours. If that had happened, and the storm hit SoWal, many people would have been screwed. Can you imagine the pressure of trying to keep everyone safe by making the call for mandatory evacuation 4 days out? We don't even know which way the storm is going 48 hours out. If you give too many, Boy Who Cried Wolf, people become complacent and will die when the storm hits and they don't leave. So as I stated, I think it would be a no brainer. Forget the part about only 15,000 people living in SoWal, because much of Hurricane Season coincides with tourists season, and residents from here, to TX to MI vacation here. Remember the storm which missed us on July 1, 2005. If it was a major storm and was headed this way, while everyone was already here for July 4, many people would be screwed.

Enough about that example, but projects which are worthy would pass without having to be tied into some arbitrary huge bill, like the "energy bill."

EDIT: almost forgot, if that funding project for $7 million dollars, to tear down and rebuild a new County pier in Panama City Beach, came across my desk, it would get rejected in a heartbeat. Most likely the beach restoration project would too.

As someone else stated, good, legitimate projects would be approved if they were a single item, rather than being included as pork in a bill like "emergency war funding." I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing if the ear marks WERE taken out. In fact, it might help the happy-spending Congress to tighten up on the wasteful spending.

Back to your question about living in Kansas. If I were a Congressman from Kansas, and it was pointed out to me the current evacuation problems of SoWal, I'd vote to fund the project. Currently, it takes something like 28 hours to evacuate SoWal, and evacuation has to be announced prior to a storms arrival. I think the bridges in WalCo close when wind speeds reach 35 mph. So, the EOC (Emergency Operations Center) has to account for the 28+ hours to get all the people off, when trying to determine when the wind speeds from the storm will reach 35 mph in WalCo, and they have to error on the side of caution. In 2007, two major Hurricanes went from a Tropical Disturbance to a Cat 3 Hurricane within 24 hours. If that had happened, and the storm hit SoWal, many people would have been screwed. Can you imagine the pressure of trying to keep everyone safe by making the call for mandatory evacuation 4 days out? We don't even know which way the storm is going 48 hours out. If you give too many, Boy Who Cried Wolf, people become complacent and will die when the storm hits and they don't leave. So as I stated, I think it would be a no brainer. Forget the part about only 15,000 people living in SoWal, because much of Hurricane Season coincides with tourists season, and residents from here, to TX to MI vacation here. Remember the storm which missed us on July 1, 2005. If it was a major storm and was headed this way, while everyone was already here for July 4, many people would be screwed.

Enough about that example, but projects which are worthy would pass without having to be tied into some arbitrary huge bill, like the "energy bill."

EDIT: almost forgot, if that funding project for $7 million dollars, to tear down and rebuild a new County pier in Panama City Beach, came across my desk, it would get rejected in a heartbeat. Most likely the beach restoration project would too.

Local pork is good pork. It is the other guy's pork --the pork that we do not understand the need for because it is a local need for the other guys--iss thee pork that we do not think is good pork. That is why the current economic stimulus pork is "good " pork because we all get to indulge in that kind of pork.

A congressman from Nebraska would no more understand the need for widening the 331 bridge than we would understand the need for federal subsidies of federal land to graze his constituent's cattle.

To do each and every expenditure as an individual vote in congress would be impossible. It is hard enough to get them to show up to work as it is. They are always campaigning or fund raising somewhere.

Good point, but isn't Congress (opposite of "progress") intentionally designed to slow things down and prevent out of control Fed Gov't from growing?

Four laning 331 and adding a span at the Clyde Beatty bridge isn't "A bridge to nowhere". Big difference in my opinion. If we did away with all "earmarks" that would be fine with me.

It has not always been a 28 hour evacuation time in sowal. That time has increased due to the allowed increase in density and developement without first making sure the proper infrastructure was in place for the safey of the citizens. But we do have a Bark Park.

I do not see where the rest of the taxpayers of the United States should be forced to fund something that could have been handled locally if government officials had acted responsibly.

I do not see where the rest of the taxpayers of the United States should be forced to fund something that could have been handled locally if government officials had acted responsibly.

This criteria would decimate not only the budget, but most of the federal gov't!

(Not that that's a bad thing.) 😀

This criteria would decimate not only the budget, but most of the federal gov't!

(Not that that's a bad thing.) 😀

Actually, the discretionary portion of the budget where most earmarks are included is probably close to 30-40% of the total. The "real" federal budget is in the non-discretionary side and is probably nearing 2+ trillion this year.

If last year was the Year of the Pig, this is the Year of the Pigs. The annual tally of Congressional earmarks is out today, revealing that despite calls for a moratorium on pork, the pigs are running wild on Capitol Hill, where members of Congress will spend $17 billion this year on their individual pet projects. Among the questionable outlays of your tax dollars: $3 million for the First Tee, a golfing program for disadvantaged youth (great idea, but can?t Tiger Woods pay for it?); $1 million for weed management in Idaho and $3 million for your friends in the diamond business.

As for the presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton is taking home nearly $300 million worth of pork, while Barack Obama netted nearly $100 million. John McCain, long a vocal opponent of pork, does not request earmarks. [Citizens Against Government Waste and CBS]