Tree health. Small fruit. Lentils. If those are the matters you hope Washington will devote funding to, you’re in luck: they’re all covered in the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. Here’s ten of the 6,600 earmarks Taxpayers for Common Sense identified in the bill:
● $40 million for a National Bio and Agro-defense facility in Kansas, requested by Sen. Sam Brownback (R., Kansas).
● $8 million for expanding Anchorage’s port, requested by Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R) (who campaigned on her ability to bring Alaska earmarks) and Mark Begich (D).
● $165,000 for maple research in Vermont, to further delve into the quality and food safety of syrup and to consider how current production methods affect tree health, requested by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vermont).
● $1 million for arthropod damage control, requested by Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.).
● $21 million for Hawaii Federal Health Care system, requested by Appropriations committee chair Sen. Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii.)
● $2.5 million to improve pedestrian and bicycling paths in Illinois, requested by Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.)
● $307,000 for research on small fruits, requested by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D., Oregon), Norm Dicks (D., Wash.), Rick Larsen (D., Wash.), Kurt Schrader (D., Oregon), and David Wu (D., Oregon) and Sens. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.), Mike Crapo (R., Idaho), Jeff Merkley (D., Oregon), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), James Risch (R., Idaho), and Ron Wyden (D., Oregon).
● $350,000 for Cool Season Legume Research, which would fund studies on what diseases harm and what improvements could help crops such as lentils and beans, requested by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), Bryon Dorgan (D., N.D.) and Patty Murray (D., Wash.) and Reps. Norm Dicks (D., Wash.) and Earl Pomeroy (D., N.D.).
● $15 million to reduce emission-caused pollution in California, requested by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif) and Democratic Reps. Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, and Jay McNerney of California.
● $1 million for AFL-CIO training programs, requested by Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa).
The total cost of earmarks in the package is estimated at $8 billion.
The National Bio and Agro-defense Facility is a critical federal lab under construction in Kansas. Kansas was unanimously selected for the lab after a three-year selection process conducted by Homeland Security. The project has been endorsed and funded by the Bush and Obama administrations and funded in past Congresses. Obama requested $40 million in Fy 2011 and the House homeland security approved that amount. It's mission is to addresses the most imminent threat to our nation;s homeland security...a biological attack that could devastate America agriculture and affect human health. Key investment, yes....pork, no!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe $8 billion cost of the earmarks is a rounding error in a $1.1 trillion spending bill.
The real outrage is that any earmarks exist AT ALL.
Without them, a lot more senators and representatives would be voting against this monstrosity and it would fail passage. The stock market would take a temporary dive, and companies would not resume hiring - which they won't do anyway even if this does pass - and on January 5, congress would pass a much better spending bill with a lower death tax rate, income taxes at level they've been for everyone for the last ten years, and no extension of unemployment benefits.
Kill this thing. The stock market will recover; it always does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I find most of that particular list of earmarks to be almost beyond parody (maple syrup research!), the one I find myself rallying to defend is the small fruits and cool season legumes ones. Whether the federal government's Department of Agriculture should be investing in small-time research for niche market crops is a wonderful question that should be fully examined come January. That said, we do have a Department of Agriculture that's involved in small-time research for niche market crops, and the earmark requests are for minimal dollar amounts for research that provides benefits to growers in multiple states. Which, if the Department of Agriculture is to have any job beyond managing the subsidy regime, ought to be enough to receive funding.
@Bioblogger: How much of it is pork is an open question, given the amount of energy expended by Pat Roberts to get the thing sited within the state. That said, it's hard to incensed about actually building the thing, as it is a legitimate discharging of the federal government's responsibility to protect the United States.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWithout passing on the individual merit of the Agro-defense Facility, perhaps less government regulation of agriculture and more variety-diversity in corn and other plantings by farmers would help as much as another federal lab.
Personal Victory Gardens and heirloom seed-sharing are practical and fun, too. Heirloom gardening (you can buy interesting seeds online) supports the best kind of small business.
My back yard is already 'planted out.' I wonder if the local 'grass Nazis' will allow onions, peas and carrots in the front yard? We'll see. It's worth a try.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Bioblogger and Juums: The persuasiveness of your arguments for your favorite pork brings tears to my eyes. Now, if these programs are so critical to the survival of the republic, they should be able to stand ALONE on their merits and survive straight up/down votes on them INDIVIDUALLY.
The fact that they are used to lard up the omnibus spending bill is all the proof any sane person needs that they could not survive such a vote. They are in the spending bill strictly as a bribe to representatives and senators who might otherwise vote against it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Port of Anchorage is the most active port in the U.S. state of Alaska, through which 95% of all (non-petroleum) cargo in and out of Alaska passes.
The Port serves 80 percent of Alaska's population and 90 percent of the consumer goods of Alaska. The Port is the major gateway for Alaska's water-borne commerce and a vital element of the regional economy. In terms of economic impact, the Port generates more than $750 million each year.
The Port's steady growth in the past decade is expected to continue into the future. To keep pace with the future trends in the shipping industry and to better serve its existing clients, the Port needs to be prepared to accommodate larger ships, with deeper drafts, and wider beams. Addressing the needs of Alaska's smaller coastal communities, the Port also needs to develop new barge berths and transshipment areas to improve the flow of goods to rural Alaska. And finally, the Port plans to improve and expand its cruise ship facilities.
Intermodal Expansion of the Port will:
* Stimulate local and regional economies
* Accommodate larger container and cruise ships, barges, and tankers
* Support new military requirements
* Enhance intermodal (rail, road, and marine) transportation systems
* Serve a wider range of users
more info: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure the expansion of the Port of Anchorage will stimulate the economy of the area. So why isn't Alaska funding this itself?
At the very least, take a separate vote on it as @Bernie Gilbert suggested.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublicans are adamantly opposed to extending unemployment benefits that will be pumped right into the economy while helping the unemployed. Yet they stand up for the heirs of millionaires who neglected to do any estate planning by railing against the 'Paris Hilton Tax'. That the Dems can't score political points on this says a lot about their message problems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse$350,000 for Cool Season Legume Research, which would fund studies on what diseases harm and what improvements could help crops such as lentils and beans, requested by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), Bryon Dorgan (D., N.D.) and Patty Murray (D., Wash.) and Reps. Norm Dicks (D., Wash.) and Earl Pomeroy (D., N.D.).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat happend to "Global Warming"? No need for Cool Season Studies!!!
Bioblogger, If this is a valid requirement and was funded in previous budgets, then there is no need for it to be be a pork project. This program obviously has proven to be nothing more than a pork barrel project that has outlived it's merits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo fill an essential spending bill with earmarks is beyond unethical. It's outright crooked, and both parties are doing it. All I have to say is how dare they? Haven't they got the message yet?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseElisa, how much of Alaska's oil money could they have used to pay for this? For every Dollar that Alaska pays in taxes to the Federal Government they get back $1.65 so maybe they could have put some of that money towards expanding the port.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey, Bioblogger,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is wrong with allowing your "key investment" to stand alone on its own merits? Why bury it in with 6,600 other "key investments" if it's so critical?
All of this is PORK. The National Bio and Agri-Defense facility should have never ever ever been taken off Plum Island. I am so glad the University of Missouri did not get this facility. Why on earth would any one want to move this facility from a very secure site to the heartland I will never know. As for the development of the Port of Alaska, may I ask how that taxpayer funded project will benefit me here in the heartland? Pork is Pork is Pork. None of this should be funded by the federal government. As far as I am concerned the states should fund these projects if they are that vital.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHawaii Federal Health Care system,didn't someone recently brag about his "home" states' goverment run health system. Why would that did money?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe rest of you states have had what? 200 years at the pork trough to fund infrastructure. All those curbs, bridges, roads, hospitals, museums. Give them all back. And now you would deny Alaska a functioning port. This states military and businesses cover your backside. Better put some infrastructure here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse