Pigs with big ears and long noses

by Prometheus 6
December 9, 2003 - 12:05pm.
on News

The Center for American Progress:

Pigs at the Trough

The House yesterday passed a massive $373 billion spending bill, laden with pork-barrel spending and controversial provisions as far as the eye could see. As the WSJ reports, "The size of the measure invites abuse. Spending set-asides for home-state projects have grown to extraordinary levels, filling scores of pages in the Congressional Record, and from the National Rifle Association to major corporations, conservative] political allies have added legislative language for their self-interests." For instance, "over the bitter protests of many small ranchers and growers, country-of-origin food labeling rules, scheduled to take effect in September 2004, would be delayed two years after a lobbying campaign by big meatpackers and food marketers. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., whose political action committee tops the list of PAC contributors to federal candidates this year, quietly added its muscle. The United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association stepped in at the end with Republicans to help seal the deal." Similarly, the gun manufacturers have added a provision which "requires the FBI to destroy records of applicants for gun purchasers after 24 hours instead of current 90 days."

WHAT'S IN -- PORK: At a time of massive budget deficits, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports, "Lawmakers face so much pork, it can't be counted." Rep. David Obey (D-WI), "said more than 7,000 earmarks worth more than $7.5 billion are in the bill." Some projects included in the bill: $200,000 for "educational outreach" at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame; The Detroit Free Press notes there is "$225,000 for a Kentucky Civil War theme park, $325,000 for a swimming pool in Salinas, CA., and $2 million for the First Tee youth golf program"; the LA Times points out "$100,000 for street furniture and sidewalks in Laverne, AL., $44 million for a bridge to Treasure Island in Florida and $75,000 for a North Pole Transit System in Alaska"; "Fiscal conservative" Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) secured $225,000 to fix a swimming pool in his hometown that he and childhood friends clogged 60 years ago; and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) -- the same Senator who helped negotiate a Medicare privatization bill to "control costs" -- secured $50 million to build a rainforest in Coralville, IA. The pork barreling is so egregious that even some hometown papers that stand to benefit are outraged. AP reports that last month, an Iowa newspaper columnist wrote that the rainforest project suffers from a "legitimacy crisis," while a recent editorial in another newspaper complained that asking for a federal handout gives Iowa a bad name. "There's nothing Iowa about begging the federal government for ($50) million," a Nov. 21 Iowa City Press Citizen editorial stated. "There's nothing Iowa about a project that won't pay for itself."

WHAT'S OUT -- MEDIA OWNERSHIP PROVISIONS: The Financial Times reports that while both Houses passed bills to preserve a national media ownership cap of 35%, the final bill makes it 39% - just high enough so that News Corporation and Viacom do not have to sell any of their local television stations. Right-wing News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch , not surprisingly, hailed the victory, as did many other media companies that contributed millions of dollars to lawmakers to make
sure they got their way. Still, the WP reports, "to many lawmakers, consumer advocacy groups and ordinary consumers, Congress is missing the point by focusing on how many stations a network can own and not on other FCC media rules allowing more local television station consolidation and newspaper-television common ownership." Specifically, "unaddressed by the spending bill are five other new media ownership rules adopted by the FCC, including one that largely lifts a ban prohibiting one company from owning a newspaper and television station in most cities, the 'cross ownership rule.'" Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) has passed a bill through the Senate that would turn back all of the FCC's regulations -- but that bill is being barred from a vote by House leaders. However, it appears the House is only a handful of votes away from forcing a vote. In the House, 206 members are sponsoring Dorgan's bill -- and if just a few more sign on to a "discharge petition," the bill would be forced to a vote.

WHAT'S OUT -- OVERTIME, REIMPORTATION, RADIO FREE EUROPE: Despite passing both
houses of Congress by wide margins, the final spending bill stripped out provisions giving seniors access to lower-priced prescription drugs from abroad. It also waters down the House and Senate-passed rollback of the FCC's media ownership deregulation. On overtime, under White House pressure, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) dropped his provision to prevent the Bush Administration from implementing rules that will deny overtime pay to about 8 million workers. And the WP reports that the bill also eliminates Radio Free Europe. The program is a tiny $11 million a year -- and is "one of the cheapest, most effective and most popular tools of U.S. public diplomacy." The cutback comes just weeks after the State Department Advisory Commission called for "an immediate end to the absurd and dangerous underfunding of public diplomacy in a time of peril."

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.prometheus6.org/trackback/2435

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by terry (not verified) on December 9, 2003 - 2:36pm.

did you have to post that? It's the holidays and I'm trying to stay out of the Christmas brandy...meh, it's stuff I shoulda known and now know anyway.

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 2:08am.

Yet another reason to vote for anyone but the rebublicrats. There is hardly a dime's worth of difference between the two parties.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 7:31am.

So you're a Green Libertarian, huh, Brian?

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 5:16pm.

More libertarian than green, though any other party has good ideas.I just read up on the controvery over the overtime pay, and it seems like a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.Personally, I would rather have the option to opt out of overtime pay. I will tell you why. After I left the Army, I did not immediately find a job that uses my skills, and pays me for them, so I had to take a lower-pay service job to pay the bills. At one point, I wanted to work some extra hours so that I could save some extra money, but I was told I was at my limit for hours, and they could not afford to pay overtime, and therefore I could not work. I was very unhappy with that, especially since there was another person who wanted someone to work their shift, and I was the only one willing and available to do so. Because the government interfered with my right to negotiate my own employment terms, I could not buy the set of books I wanted at Borders, which is what I wanted the money for. I am sure there is some good research out there, but I would be interested to see what the negative impact compulsory overtime pay has on the economy.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 7:19pm.

Because the government interfered with my right to negotiate my own employment terms, I could not buy the set of books I wanted at Borders, which is what I wanted the money for.

Brian…did you WORK for the government?Do you have any idea what employment terms were like before manditory overtime pay? You need a serious dose of history, my friend.

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 7:33pm.

"did you WORK for the government?"When I was in the Army, but not at the job I am referring to here. My right to negotiate terms includes the right to decide whether I want to get paid overtime or not. Big Brother said no, so I was prevented from working. As an aside, why isn't there a level of privacy expected between employer and employee that there is between a doctor and a patient?As for history, I believe that many people have a wildly distorted idea of what it was like before minimum wage existed. As proof, I offer the fact that minimum wage only applies to hourly wages, and not those on an annual salary. Are salaried employees currently mistreated?

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 10:00pm.

My right to negotiate terms includes the right to decide whether I want to get paid overtime or not. Big Brother said no, so I was prevented from working.

"Big Brother" didn't decide the maximum number of hours you could work. Your employer did. They'd given you the maximum amount of money they wanted to. They'd have been delighted to have you work longer if they weren't required to pay you at all for it (them salaried workers you mentioned, who are online, on cell phones, in the office covering for the laid-off guy, when the clock says they aren't getting paid anymore will affirm that statement).
As for history, I believe that many people have a wildly distorted idea of what it was like before minimum wage existed.
You certainly do.Two words, Brian: Child Labor.One more word: Sweatshop.Corporate America and the Cheap Labor Conservatives that run it like sweatshops. When conditions in the USofA won't allow them to run a sweatshop, they move their factories to another country that will.