Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-28-2005, 03:14 PM
MtSmalls MtSmalls is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: CO
Posts: 148
Default Re: No it is not corruption.......Actually It Is Called Pork

Pork Barrel politics is as old as, well, pork barrels (would YOU buy pork, even salted, from a barrell??).

The corruption comes in HOW this juicy little amendment made its way into the bill. That is AFTER the chairman of the committee gaveled discussion on the bill closed. NO ONE has voted for this amendment, in committee (reconciling the House and Senate versions) in the House or in the Senate.

Secondly, it takes the funds out of government control (local or otherwise) and effectively places it in the hands of corporate executives that stand to benefit. Thirdly, we're not talking about a $1.5M bus stop, or $100 million for an indoor tropical rain forest in Iowa. It's $1.5 BILLION. How much armor would that buy for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq??

I disagree with this type of pork across the board, even when its handled within the procedures of the House. This is my main reason for supporting the line item veto power of the President.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:22 PM
BCPVP BCPVP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whitewater, WI
Posts: 830
Default Re: No it is not corruption.......Actually It Is Called Pork

I think the title of this thread is intentionally antagonistic and probably hypocritical. That said, here's the Citizens Against Government Waste press release regarding the Energy Bill:

CCAGW Denounces Energy Bill



(Washington, D.C.) - The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today urged both chambers of Congress to vote against the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6). The conference report contains $14.5 billion in targeted tax breaks and incentives and authorizes more than $66 billion in federal spending. President Bush originally requested a bill costing $6.7 billion.



“The bill does not establish a coherent policy; it’s a mess, the kind of hodgepodge approach that breaks the bank and fails to produce results.” CCAGW President Tom Schatz said. “While the energy bill does not decrease dependence on foreign oil, it does increase dependence on federal handouts.”


The 1700-page conference report is chock-full of corporate subsidies, targeted tax breaks, and other special interest handouts. Among the provisions CCAGW finds most objectionable:

· $550 million for the Denali Commission. Established to funnel federal economic development aid to Alaska, the commission’s only champion has been Senate Appropriations Committee member Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). There has been $134.5 million in pork for the commission since 2000.

· Title XIV: Unlimited Loan Guarantees. Title XIV will guarantee up to 80 percent of the cost of developing new energy technologies. When such endeavors fail, taxpayers will cover the losses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost at $3.75 billion in loan guarantees over the first five years, carrying a 20 to 60 percent risk of default on the loans. But after five years, there is no limit on the amount of loans that can be guaranteed.



· Ethanol mandate. The requirement that 7.5 billion gallons of corn-derived ethanol be added to the domestic gasoline supply by 2012, double the current mandate, is nothing more than corporate welfare bad for consumers and taxpayers but a boon to Midwestern farmers. Producing a gallon of ethanol may require more energy than the ethanol actually contains; the result being that oil imports will fall by less than .05 percent.



· Hydrogen car. The conference bill allocates $1.92 billion over five years toward research related to hydrogen fuel cell technology, even though major auto makers are already developing hydrogen-powered vehicles.



· Intermittent escalator study. The energy bill instructs the federal government to study the advantages and disadvantages of using escalators that remain stationary until approached by passengers.



“We don’t need a federal study on intermittent escalators. When such products are technically and economically feasible, the market will provide them. The federal government should not be picking winners and losers. The free market is the best way to promote energy efficient products and services,” Schatz concluded.



The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation's largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News...le&id=9150
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.