Deseret News | Reader comments: Some 'pork' projects aren't pork to home states

Reader comments
Jay Evensen: Some 'pork' projects aren't pork to home states

wrz | 1:12 a.m. March 8, 2009

Utahns don't need $1 million to control crickets. The place has seagulls.

Hmmm | 5:33 a.m. March 8, 2009

Pork is pork, regardless of who's eating it.

Logic of earmarks | 5:35 a.m. March 8, 2009

McCain has made a name for himself over earmarks, but he over-simplifies the whole earmark issue. First and foremost, earmarks make up a very small portion of the overall budget. What is it now, like 2 percent? Thus, instead of debating issues like our cost of war in Iraq (the most significant line item in the budget affecting hundreds of billions, he's steering attention onto Mormon crickets of $1 million).

Second, money for the federal government is typically allocated by the directors of key agencies, and often, small states' key priorities get lost in the budget process. Earmarks come out of the budgets of these federal agencies, a senator or congressman can ensure that a portion of those funds go to specific needed projects in home states. Making fun of Mormon crickets is great fun, but in Utah's rural communities, it is an issue on par with water rights, uranium tailings clean up, and economic development. If agencies in Washington DC don't consider it a priority, rural communities don't have access to funds to resolve the problem.

Yes, there are bad earmarks, like Alaska's bridge to nowhere, but most are useful!

Comments continue below

smell test | 7:42 a.m. March 8, 2009

Every dollar spent should be justified by a cite of constitutional authority. Fed spending would be under control and States would have more power if such justification were necessary.

Anonymous | 9:22 a.m. March 8, 2009

Republicans called money for bee research pork. Most the fruit corps we eat require bee pollination. Bee colonies are in collapse. The money is really about giving food in the future.

Then, there was saving the rat. There money was about flood control through wet lands reclamation in the Bay near San Jose. Part of the benefit is improving water quality. Because an endemic rodent also would benefit Drudge linked this to a lie calling it money for rats.

Limbaugh and Fox News know their audience are intellectually lazy. They know they will believe any lies fed them.

I find people writing the Gore said he had invented the Internet. Gore never said that. Clinton and Troopergate was a lie as was White Water and Vince Foster.

Local issue | 10:06 a.m. March 8, 2009

It's smart to spend money to control crickets. It's stupid to ask the federal government to do it. If Utah has a cricket problem, then Utah should pay the money to fix it if Utah feels it is a priority. Other states need to do the same with their local issues.

Amen Local issue | 10:26 a.m. March 8, 2009

If controlling crickets in Utah is important, the the people of Utah should put up the money to deal with our Utah issue. Likewise, people in any other state can raise their own money to deal with their local issue. Pork sometimes tastes good and may contribute something, but it is still pork.

"Local issue" has it right. | 12:52 p.m. March 8, 2009

If Utah residents think we need to control the "crickets" then we should spend the money, not the feds. No national interest in this issue.

Agki | 4:04 p.m. March 8, 2009

Were not the Utah Representatives involved in getting the earmark in the first place? Two of the three are Republicans and the third characterizes himself as a fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrat. If the project is justified (and it seems to be needed to develop controls for the pests), what's wrong with the Feds providing the funds if the state doesn't want to deal with it? Or is that really your problem with it? Are you sure you're not just whining because you lost in November and Obama is the POTUS?

"Agki" dead wrong | 4:36 p.m. March 8, 2009

Please? Whining because "you lost in November...?" Is that what you really wanted to say Agki? Is this what you voted for? This veiled Socialism has been creeping in our country for decades and in a matter of about 50 days Obama has put it into hyper drive. Nationalization of banks, insurance, manufacturing (autos), health insurance and over 3 trillion dollars lost in the stock market since inauguration day. No one party or individual lost when Obama was elected...we all lost.

Phred | 8:53 p.m. March 8, 2009

The use of the term "earmark" seems to have become a pejorative with those who do not understand the term. If Congress sees the need to replace a bridge on a federal highway caused by Katrina, they could increase the budget of the Transportation Department by that amount, but they have only one way to assure that it will actually be spent for that purpose and that is to earmark it. Otherwise it is up to the TD to decide where it will spend it's funds and that can be used as a political weapon if the civil servant who does that kind of thing and the Congressman who sponsored the funding are from different parties.

Granted, the authority to earmark can and has been misused but that is primarily our fault when we vote to retain a Congressman who uses that abuse of power as a way to buy our votes. Personally I am more impressed with a representative who would stand up and refuse federal funding and instead fight to reduce taxes so we have the freedom to pursue the projects we feel are important instead of In Obama We Trust.

Spoc | 9:10 p.m. March 8, 2009

In the particular case of the crickets, there may be a fly in the ointment when it comes to self funding the fight. Since the land that is being sprayed is federal land (BLM, National Forest, Air Force, etc.) it may be tricky for local or state agencies to get permission to spray their land. And since they cannot be controlled after they have matured on federal land and move on to private land to feed, I can see why as good stewards of the land they are required to maintain it in this way.

The other approach would be to have all but the Air Force land returned to the control of the state and let the agriculture industry in Utah self fund the abatement program. Unfortunately we have a natural tendency to try to get someone else to pay for our expenses and we somehow believe that is going to reduce the overall debt we pay and we buy into the federal lottery hoping to "win against the house". The sad part is, overall we never do. Odds are always in favor of the house. That is how they get elected.

Not Agki | 9:11 p.m. March 8, 2009

I can't speak for Agki, but this is exactly what I voted for. You can thank me later.

Agki | 6:49 a.m. March 9, 2009

I'll tell you what's wrong with states seeking federal funding for state projects; it violates the fiscal sovereignty of the states and makes them beholden to the federal government. It is clear that the founding fathers never intended the federal government to have as much power as it has today. All of these federally mandated programs can easily be resolved at the state level. The court system is what has allowed the federal government to overreach its bounds as a governing entity. The states will only put up with it for so long. (United States Constitutions, 10th Amendment)

RE: Not Akgi | 7:47 a.m. March 9, 2009

Thank you later? Tell me "Not Agki" ... name me a time and place where socialism actually worked? Let me name a few where it has not: Russia, Italy, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, China, Cuba...etc. Socialism is a failed disaster every time it is tried.

Agki | 7:56 a.m. March 9, 2009

@"Not Agki": It's what I voted for, too, but it's less than what I want. I desire a bigger and better New Deal that will maintain the Middle Class and assure that no one will live in poverty, that everyone will have access to health care, that education will be available to all, and that no one will have to go homeless or hungry. I desire policies and laws that create a return to the more equitable 1950s and 60s before the class warfare conducted by the upper classes against the middle and lower class majority.

In 1953, Time Magazine sent a reporter (Alvin Josephy) to take a look at America were reacting to the New Deal policies then in effect. One of the issues looked at was farms and farm subsides. The farmers responded to his inquiries with "If this is socialism, we're all for it!"

Eisenhower was a socialist!

KW | 9:08 a.m. March 9, 2009

Yep, I see the problem.

We should have named them "locusts" instead of "crickets." Then, someone who wasn't willing to spend the time looking them up might still get the picture.

Equitable? | 11:06 a.m. March 9, 2009

What? Are you for real? Of course Farmers were for free money. It's easier to harvest money from congress than an actual crop. Socialism is popular when people receive something for nothing. But pretty soon government can't provide what it promises. Every socialist country has faced this reality...it simply cannot be sustained for a long period of time.

The American Miracle is this: Freedom. True liberals in history believed this same thing. Liberals today are not liberals. Just socialists that do not know they are socialists.

By the way...I'm still waiting for someone to give me a socialist country that is successful.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.