It's not that McCain, McCaskill, Feingold, Coburn and Demint sponsored no pork bills; they did. But they weren't the sole sponsors of any one pork bill. Further, some of the bills listed aren't, in my opinion, "pork." A quarter million dollar study to help agriculture in the US must certainly have some degree of merit.
I also remember a few years back, I asked a question about pork barrel expenditures here on AP, and the practice was defended as bringing dollars to home districts. We can't have it both ways. In my opinion, defending local pork while decrying pork in other areas is a sure way to ensure the practice continues.
Posts: 16165 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
If we want to eliminate some of this pork, two things we could do might work wonders.
1) Apply term limits to both houses of Congress. Max it out at 12 years. That should be plenty of time for these guys to work on their agendas. Besides once they are in there too long, they have a tendency to build up seniority & power and they think the U.S. Treasury is a bottomless money pit.
2) Give the President the power of the Line Item Veto.
Both of the above would need to be amended by the Constitution. But it would certainly be well worth the effort.
Posts: 2043 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
