Pork Projects by Year

Club for Growth ^ | 10/20/05 | Andrew Roth

[Rodney King]

rom Chris Edwards’ new book, Downsizing the Federal Government (which cited CAGW):

Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills

2005 - 13,997
2004 - 10,656
2003 - 9,362
2002 - 8,341
2001 - 6,333
2000 - 4,326
1999 - 2,838
1998 - 2100
1997 - 1,596
1996 - 958
1995 - 1439

Using 2005 numbers, by voting down the “Bridges” amendment, the Senate let the country know that it was unwilling to defund 2 out of 13,997 pork projects today. That’s 0.0142887762 percent.

Posted by Andrew Roth at October 20, 2005 09:06 PM | TrackBack | Print

[Rodney King]

Pathetic. The GOP Congress that was elected in 1994 did a good job for a year or two, and then decided that even if you can beat 'em, it's more fun to join 'em.

[Sir Gawain]

Yep. "The era of small government is over."

[RockinRight]

Would total elimination of pork be enough to balance the budget?

[xrp]

Whew, I sure am glad the party of smaller government is in control of the House, Senate and Presidency.

[TomGuy]

How much more GOP control of the 3 branches can we afford?

I think we need a good case of gridlock. Maybe giving one of the Congressional chambers to 'the other party' will wake the current party up.

[NatsFan]

Ya, good thing we have the Republicans in power to keep down the cost of government...

[Andy from Beaverton]

I came up with 30.75% annual growth since '96.

[WhiteGuy]

Quite a legacy.

[FreeAtlanta]

Or, make it worse. Isn't that part of why we get so many pork barrel projects? Don't they say to each other, I will vote for you bill if you do me a little favor?

We just need some integrity among these jerks.

[Cagey]

I heard the BIC company stopped making Veto pens about five years ago.

[calrighty]

ROTF....: )

[aShepard]

13,997! Wow

I wonder how many of them will be named "The Robert Byrd _________ (fill in the blank)"

[eyespysomething]

[Kokojmudd]

LOL...I think.
Where is the line item veto anyway?

[From The Deer Stand]

Republicans -- Democrats -- there's no longer a difference between them. I've written my congressman and senators and have told them that I don't expect to hear them whining about a tax cut with all the wasteful spending they continue to support. Won't do any good but it makes me a feel better.

[manwiththehands]

"Maybe giving one of the Congressional chambers to 'the other party' will wake the current party up."

Great idea. Repubics can sit out a few years and regain their senses. In the meantime, nothing stops an out-of-control government better than gridlock.

[eyespysomething]

It was ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in 1998, after having been enacted in 1996. It was part of Gingrich's Contract with America. Clinton used it, but congress many times overruled it anyway.

There is a new push on for it again. Bush has said he'll use it, but he hasn't shown any signs in 5 years of cutting anything.

[Pessimist]

"I think we need a good case of gridlock."

There really is lot to be said for that.

[Huck]

Man, the results don't lie. I guess I'm in the wrong party. Looks like maybe we need Clinton back to keep spending down.

[q_an_a]

these numbers are not reflective of the fact that no highway bill was passed for more than two years. So the money that was sitting in the tax coffers was not used - that means all our gas taxes could not be returned to the states as they should have been.