Skip to main content

View Diary: The Coburn Amendment (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Pork is pork. (none)
    They should be "coming" for all of it.  

    I would imagine that 90% of that transportation bill is raw meat that could be put to much better use.  I agree with Kos on this, I would not mind shifting other pork project money to where it is needed.    

    When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

    by flo58 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 09:55:39 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Use this issue for education (none)
      At the very least we should use this issue to inform the public on the dangerous state of our budget as well as the incestuous relationship between lobbyists and politicians.
      •  Lobbyists? Pork is not lobbyist's meat. (none)
        It's driven directly by state and local popular appetite for highway improvements (and the family wage jobs that go with them).

        The wrangling is done directly by your elected representatives, with less lobbyist involvement than almost anything.

        None Dare Call It Stupid!

        by RonK Seattle on Thu Oct 20, 2005 at 07:32:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Then the LA levees and bridges are pork, neh? (none)
      This is the kind of ignorant talk that makes effective public discourse impossible. And "I would imagine 90% waste" is typical conservative-duped tax revolt imaginative sentiment.

      What's pork? The spending you don't like. What's not pork? The spending you do like. And where you stand is gonna depend on where you sit.

      Transportation projects have an interesting property -- they are constructed in particular places.

      Whatever process we use to decide which projects get funding, and to what level, locals will disagree as to relative priorities and state/local funding capacity.

      And you've done nothing to suggest an alternative standard by which neutral parties could ever agree where the money "is needed".

      None Dare Call It Stupid!

      by RonK Seattle on Thu Oct 20, 2005 at 07:21:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  An earmark is an earmark is an earmark (none)
        I would argue that the Coburn amendment, although certainly meritorious, isn't as good as Markos makes it out to be.  It still means that the construction project in Louisiana, which is probably desperately needed, doesn't have to compete in the budget with other extremely meritorious projects such as extending the DC Metro subway to Dulles Airport, having the Long Island Railroad go to Grand Central Station in New York as well as Penn Station, or building a 3rd St. MUNI lightrail in San Francisco.  The three mentioned projects all serve many, many people -- probably far more than the construction project in Louisiana does.  What should be done is have some beauracrats in Washington, DC (my home town) determine who receives the transportation grants just as they do with NIH research projects.  Obviously, the beauracrats are going to have some pet projects they are going to fund, but the process I described will weed out most of the projects having lesser merit.

        That said, I believe the Coburn amendment should be adopted because clearly the earmark for Louisiana is far more meritorious than the earmark in Alaska.

        The quest for freedom, dignity, and the rights of man will never end. - Justice Brennan

        by jim bow on Thu Oct 20, 2005 at 08:36:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site