It's good, obviously.

Of course, one person's pork is another person's important program.

Well, in this "new era of fiscal responsibility," it's nice to see we're following the President's call to "tighten our belts" and not bilking the taxpayers of other states, many of which are in worse financial straits than we are. It's for the common good, you see.

Craig Wilhelm's argument seems to amount to little more than "pork is good because we can like... use it for things. And stuff." How that differs from any other excuse or justification for pork barrel spending, I'm not sure.

Another way to look at it is for every $1.00 Oregon sends to the feds, we get $0.93 back - effectively making Oregon a donor state.

Interesting enough, red states such as New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky, Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missouri, Tennessee, Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming, and Kansas make up the bulk of the welfare states - receiving more in tax dollars than they pay in.

Yeah, ain't that a funny bit of hypocrisy. I have read articles from political scientists who provide numbers that back up the notion that almost all of the "Blue" states are donor states, while the "Red" states are welfare states meaning that they use "Blue" state dollars to fund their public goods and services.

I cannot cite the articles here because most of you do not have access to the article databases available to us in Higher Education.

Personally, I would be in favor of a tax policy that compels welfare states (read Southern and Midwestern) to put their money where their mouth is and pay for the services that their state, county and local services provide instead of relying on the tax payer dollars from the donor states (read states that vote Democrat).

Then again, that would be too hard to acknowledge, reconcile with their antiquated "Government should just die" philosophy, and implement into practice for those hypocritical losers like Rick Perry who give lip service to secession, but are taking Federal dollars behind closed doors.

God I hate Republicans and I am not ashamed to say that I hope that the Republican party goes the way of the Whigs.

While I agree with Scott(did I just vomit in my mouth) and YOM, the fact remain that they are still slopping the pigs and there is no reason for our hogs to claim moral superiority. Get in there and get us our share of the monies.

This is the point at which some Right Thinking Native Oregonian is supposed to bewail how our congressional delegation has had no influence over appropriations since Mark Hatfield left office.

I know "pork free" sounds a little like "party free", but, it's good. And the next best thing, along with, "corp money free". (Corps aren't persons and money ain't speech).

Well, despite all the rather unconvincing cries of hypocrisy (such a system is, after all, the "progressive" social model writ large), the answer to the riddle of why "red states" "get" more than they "give" is simple: Fewer people live there, so tax revenues in such places are less. It's the "progressive" tax model in action.

Personally, I would be in favor of a tax policy that compels welfare states (read Southern and Midwestern) to put their money where their mouth is and pay for the services that their state, county and local services provide instead of relying on the tax payer dollars from the donor states (read states that vote Democrat).

Do you believe that the government should exact more money from the wealthy? If so, do you see the glaring contradiction in your position?

Again, this is not "Republican hypocrisy." This is Federal progressive tax policy and Wyoming and New Mexico don't really have much say in the matter.

God I hate Republicans

Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that your version of society is based around the idea that people who don't agree with you should be punished.

Interesting enough, red states such as New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky, Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missouri, Tennessee, Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming, and Kansas make up the bulk of the welfare states - receiving more in tax dollars than they pay in.

Yeah. They refer to blue states as "The Teat" while they piss and moan about how we have all the welfare bums draining the economy.

Hopefully this will be reversed now that the Democrats control the committee chairs and the majority. Maybe the conservative states will have the chance to demonstrate for us the joys of self-sufficiency, for the first time since most of their citizens were born..

So much for "progressive taxation," huh?

Kari:

Of course, one person's pork is another person's important program.

Bob T:

Well, no, Kari. That line is often tossed out to end the discussion and keep the gravy train going. Fact is that many of these are junk even to the politician trying to obtain the money, but which s/he needs to keep the image that s/he is so important to the state/district that re-election is enhanced.

As for the projects or ideas that may be considered somewhat worthwhile, there's still the issue that they are not the business of the national government. Does anyone ever wonder why, if money collected from us in the first place is sent back to locals for things far from national in scope, it should have been collected in the first place? I have problems with funding things that, if put up to a vote as single items, would get perhaps two or three votes. This is why they lump them together. That doesn't really change anything about the merits.

Come on, Kari, there's something wrong with this system, and it should be seen in terms other than the right-left nonsense that gets us nowhere.

Bob Tiernan Portland