Drink Tank

Extra Aqua Vitae Nulla Salus

9.19.2005

Who yah gonna call?

PORK BUSTERS!

SO THE EARLIER PORK POST -- in which various bloggers posted and emailed about pork in their states -- looked kind of promising, and N.Z. Bear and I got together to figure out a way to take it up a notch.
How are we going to mobilize the blogosphere in support of cuts in wasteful spending to support Katrina relief? Here's the plan.

Identify some wasteful spending in your state or (even better) Congressional District. Put up a blog post on it. Go to N.Z. Bear's new PorkBusters page and list the pork, and add a link to your post.

Then call your Senators and Representative and ask them if they're willing to support having that program cut or -- failing that -- what else they're willing to cut in order to fund Katrina relief. (Be polite, identify yourself as a local blogger and let them know you're going to post the response on your blog). Post the results. Then go back to NZ Bear's page and post a link to your followup blog post.

The result should be a pretty good resource of dubious spending, and Congressional comments thereon, for review by blogs, members of the media, etc. And maybe even members of Congress looking for wasteful spending . . . .
Feel free to copy the cool logo by Stacy Tabb (or this larger version) and use it on your own posts.
Technorati tag: porkbusters.


Considering this blog covers 3 states, it should be easy to find something to post about. Follow the title link to see all his links. I think this is a very good idea.

It would be a work of political genius if Bush managed to get an equal amount of permanent funding cut to pay for a temporary program. Given the record, I'm not confident. Mapping the decisions to your local governors, senators, and representatives directly should help.

What will keep the local systems in line?

Fear.
Fear of this blogosphere.

[heh, sorry, had to do it. You can't say the phrase 'local governors' without thinking it.]

11 Comments:

At 9:41 AM, Blogger Miguel said...

Politicians would be more frightened of you & instapudit if you didn't constantly mutter about how you can't regret your Bush vote because of national security issues. Republicans have you guys locked up, but big business welfare recievers and other pork benificiaries will switch in a heartbeat.

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger Ivan said...

It is true. I would rather vote for a big-spending security prez than a socialist.

If that's what you mean by “locked-up”, then you have a dangerously vague idea about the lack of good competition on the national stage.

Also, a while back Oded laughed off my suggestion that voting is when you have a say. Now I'm presenting an alternative in doing something that I'm sure you can agree to. There are federal programs in New York you probably don't find useful.

Rather than repeating for the 25th time that, yes, I voted for Bush, and, yes, there are aspects of his leadership which I don't like in principle, maybe you should DO something.

Or was campaigning for a loser enough for the decade?

[This is overly harsh, as you DID do something really good. But this is more about smaller/smarter government than generous private aide.]

 
At 10:32 AM, Blogger Miguel said...

I'm just saying that the current administration knows that pork barrel projects are not an issue for their constituents, because they aren't. No one in office really cares about highway projects you'd like to see cut, Ivan, because your vote is non-negotiable.

 
At 10:44 AM, Blogger Ivan said...

Your comments are incorrectly applied in assuming the debate is about the presidency.

The biggest impact will be upon smaller elections in 2006, which many people predict will be a large shake-up.

My guess is that the lack of fiscal conservatism will make many libertarians/clintonites look good relative to big-government democratic dinosaurs and big-government republican drunkards.

You are very wrong that senators and representatives can choose pork program after pork program without consequences. Even if people are happy with an individual state or district getting more money than they pay in taxes, they will vote to change when the government is seen as bloated.

 
At 11:05 AM, Blogger Miguel said...

By the way, leftwing eggheads agree that Hurricane Katrina should result in an overhaul of porkbarel spending, and that it may be an oppurtunity for political gain. I am unimpressed with the prospects for any chnge nonetheless.

 
At 9:17 PM, Blogger oded said...


If that's what you mean by “locked-up”, then you have a dangerously vague idea about the lack of good competition on the national stage.


Bullshit there is no democracy on a national level. You only have corprate intrests on the national level. Nader isn't even allowed to debate in this country.

How much pork would make you not support a security president. And I'm a little confused by this statement.


It is true. I would rather vote for a big-spending security prez than a socialist.


I guess i can see how you can call Bush a security " guiddy yup" Prez. but dont you think that all the pork he has authorized makes him a socialist? or are you only against welfare for the poor?

The real question i guess is what sort of spending would make you support a diffrent leader who might not be as committed to staying in iRaq?

 
At 9:32 PM, Blogger oded said...

While I was in Nashvile I saw somthing disturbing called yellow dog democrats. In order to identify yourself as a yellow dog dem you put a picture of a yellow dog on your lawn and what it means is that you would vote for a yellow dog before you vote for a republican.
To me this means that your vote is already counted and no intrest needs to appeal to you in order to change your vote hence if you are in a district that is considered not in swing you wont even get cattered to by either side of any problem.

Ivan would you consider yourself a red dog republican?

 
At 9:37 PM, Blogger oded said...

What pork do you guys suggest we suggest as a blog be cut? I nominate project atlas and the bag searches.

lets put the fear of the blowhard-o-sphere into politicians.
/I_dont_even_know_If_responding_to_a_sarcastic_post>

 
At 11:34 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

How about each of us make a post with pork. Only do it if you are willing to follow-up and call at least one person who could do something about it. Post their response in an update.

 
At 9:09 AM, Blogger Ivan said...

The last libertarian candidate would have gotten my vote if domestic spending were worse than it is today. I'm not sure how much worse it would need to be.

Non-presidential politics on a national level is about representatives and senators. Nader's tripe about corporations is just a bit too shallow. Does he think unions, especially public sector unions, are special interests that need to be thwarted in the name of democracy? Of course not.


Don't get me wrong, he is usually very principled. But don't give me banal statements like: "Bullshit there is no democracy on a national level. You only have corprate intrests on the national level. Nader isn't even allowed to debate in this country."

I'm sorry, but how exactly did you get a hold of Nader's ideas? Just because he wasn't in the same room as the debaters doesn't mean "there is no democracy". I hate the two party system as much as most, but keep it reasonable...

"Ivan would you consider yourself a red dog republican?"

I voted Bush and any libertarian candidate on the ballot last November. If no libertarian, I voted republican. I didn't vote where there was no contest (like my representative - who actually supported things I would approve of, like basic research for CMU).

In the next election, if the republican doesn't say things like "cut taxes and spending" and does say things like "protect [non-butt-sex] marriage", I'm voting libertarian. If there is no libertarian, I'll vote marijuana party. If the democrat does not have the last name "Kerry" or "Kennedy", I'll consider voting for him or her.

No, I wouldn't consider myself a red-dog republican.

You all should distinguish between republicans and conservatives (or "liberals" in the 19th century proper sense). You would be hard pressed to change my opinions on the latter. I'm changing my own opinions on the former.

 
At 1:30 PM, Blogger oded said...


"Don't get me wrong, he is usually very principled. But don't give me banal statements like: "Bullshit there is no democracy on a national level. You only have corprate intrests on the national level. Nader isn't even allowed to debate in this country."

you should read this book

 

Post a Comment

<< Home