More Money Spent on Pork in 2006 than Ever Before
By Adam Kredo
WASHINGTON, April 5 – Two live pigs who recently abandoned the comfort of their home in Georgia showed up in Washington Wednesday to help publicize the release by Citizens Against Government Waste of its15th annual Congressional Pig Book.
The Pig Book, its sponsors say, details all pork-barrel projects listed in the federal budget. Its publisher, Citizens Against Government Waste, is a private, non-partisan, non-profit organization whose announced goal is to erase waste and mismanagement in the federal government.
The group identified 9,963 projects as pork in the 11 appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, costing a record $29 billion. While the number of projects is down 29 percent from last year, the cost is up 6.2 percent.
“It is clear that our representatives and senators are shamelessly pursuing their pork once again,” Tom Schatz, president of the organization, said during a press conference as the two live pigs – Dudley and Winnie – circled the podium munching butter-flavored corn cakes.
The group also handed out its “Oinkers of 2006” citations aimed at members it has labeled big spenders. Recipients included Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who received “The Cold Shoulder Award” for earmarking $325 million in pork for Alaska, and Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., who was awarded “The Flushing our Money Down the Toilet Award” for earmarking $1 million to the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative.
The organization equates pork projects with so-called earmarks and defines such a project as “a line item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures.”
In a ranking of all 50 states and Washington, D.C., Connecticut placed 35 th , spending $87,247,000, or $24.85 per capita, according to the report. Last year Connecticut was ranked 38 th . Nationally, pork spending this year amounted to $30.55 per person.
Alaska and Hawaii, the top two recipients of federal pork this year, received $489.87 and $378.29 per person respectively, according to the report.
Rep. Chris Shays, R-4, said “that an earmark is valid if it is requested by a municipality or nonprofit in the Fourth District.” He said he will not support an earmark if he cannot “explain its value to constituents in a community meeting.”
Shays was responsible for such projects as $1 million for the Norwalk Center/West Avenue Corridor Development and Academy Street Extension, $900,000 for dredging of the Norwalk harbor and $1 million to enhance economic links between Bridgeport, Norwalk and Stanford and encourage job opportunities and housing development in the region, according to the congressman’s Web site.
The Pig Book listed 92 specific projects in Connecticut that that the organization considered pork. Items such as $1.3 billion for maintenance of the Bridgeport Harbor, $900,000 for maintenance of the Norwalk Federal Navigation Project and $250,000 for Community Oriented Policing Services in Stamford all made the list.
A majority of the projects the group singled out in Connecticut are earmarked for transportation.
To be considered pork, a project has to meet at least one of seven criteria, the organization said. An item that “serves only a local or special interest” is one of the criteria.
Republican Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., attended the press conference at which the Pig Book was unveiled. The senators said they hope to gain support for legislation that calls for more transparency in earmarking funds.
Both senators called for reform of “a broken system” in which members can earmark money in order to appear as champions of the needs of their home districts.
“Earmarks are the gateway drug to overspending” by the government, Coburn said.
“My constituents deserve better,” McCain said.
But some experts offer a more moderate view when it comes to earmarking and so-called pork barrel spending.
Former Rep. Bill Frenzel (R-Minn., 1971-91) and a current member of the economic studies program at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank based in Washington, said in a telephone interview, “I think that pork sort of lies in the eye of the beholder.”
But while acknowledging the positive aspects of earmarks, Frenzel was critical of the lack of transparency and oversight in the appropriations process.
“Just because it’s for a good purpose doesn’t mean it’s a good expenditure of the public money,” he said.
