CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in On pork and hypocrisy

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

steve schnorf — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:20:07 -0000

Private organizations such as Catholic Charities? Lutheran Family Services? Oh. the shame of it all!

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

One who knows — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:54:04 -0000

I've seen some of the pork that's been processed in the last five years in Illinois, and I can attest to the fact that a lot of it does not pass the sniff test. Emil Jones' use of the lump sum line items allowed him to award prominant religious supportes with funding for their "daycare" programs or "after school arts" programs, when in reality, the funding went to pay for personnel, more specifically it went to his buddies. I agree that the infrastructure and emergency management grants are warranted and necessary, but when public funds are used to line the pockets of private organizations, that's where I draw the line.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Team Sleep — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:04:37 -0000

Pork will never go away. But we can limit it. Perhaps we need an amendment banning pork as an incentive to buy votes for a major legislative plan. One can hope.

Rogers, why do you think they do that? It's the best way to keep the voting public (and some reporters) from knowing what projects are funded and who gets what.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Bonzo's Montreux — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:59:40 -0000

I believe it was George Ryan who said something along the lines of, if money is given to your district, it's a "necessary project." If money is given to someone else's district, it's "pork." If these very same projects for the very same amounts were in a budget that paid for Blago's beloved healthcare plan, he'd be praising them as "necessary projects." He didn't have a problem signing the last few years' budgets that had money for member projects in them.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Nobody's opinion — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:59:35 -0000

Does $1 million for Pilgrim Baptist Church not count as "pork?" I have no idea if the funding for the church destroyed by fire is actually written into the operating budget anywhere, I just find it contradictory. But therein lies no surprise. The governor has contradicted himself before. Would it be proper usage to say that it is in the zeitgeist of the Blagojevich administration?

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

So Ill — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:23:45 -0000

Amen, Anon (although to be fair, that ballpark IS going to set a frontier league attendance record, and has generally been considered a success here so far).

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Siyotanka — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:23:41 -0000

This just in...

Gov. Rod Blagojevich helped officially open the Illinois State Fair, but he only took one question from reporters because he said he had to get back to the Capitol to work on the budget.

Blagojevich says a proposed budget measure doesn't take care of health care and infrastructure needs. Versions of that budget proposal were passed Thursday by the House and Senate.

Blagojevich calls the proposal full of "pork, politics and false promises."

He says there is a long way to go before a budget is in place.

After cutting a ribbon to open the fair in Springfield, the governor said he had to return to work at the Capitol.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Moderate Repub — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:06:38 -0000

Rich,

You nailed this one. DuPage, still think Rich is backing the Gov? Anyway, I don't know why the hypocracy bothers me SO much, you would think I would be used to it by now.
To Jackson, so its ok to spread $400 million in so called pork around for brick and mortor projects that equal $10 billion, but not ok to spread around so called pork of $200 million on top of $59 billion for an operating budget?
Everyone line items projects except for Blagos buddy the president of the senate, but thats ok to the Gov, who railed against it in his campaign, whatever. It will never end. 99% of pork are needed projects in communities that can't get the funding any other way. Pork is just a term used in campaigns to make people look bad.
No one picked up the story about the faked signature of the IEA lobbiest by the Governors office?

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:02:33 -0000

Isn't this the same guy that gave $1,000,000 for a minor league ballpark on a whim?

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers P — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:58:20 -0000

My eyes are red from looking through the 1300 odd pages, just to find what's in it for Osterman's (my) district. Looking at those, what seems like endless line items, are just plain mind-numbing to say the least....

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Ghost — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:42:22 -0000

madigans use of item specifics to identify the spending lets the public see how many is being spent and covers my concenr with pork spending. Money spread out rationaly and proportianly throughtout the state benefits us all.

Then again, I still hold out a dream that the state will put in place the pork project of a high speed train running from spfld to chicago and st.louis.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

jackson — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:26:10 -0000

Where's the full list?

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

jwscott72 — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:22:30 -0000

Now the Governor is a fiscal conservative worried about "pork'? From largest tax increase in history to bribing state senators (I had forgotten about that) to nickle and diming the funding of fire stations and fixing sidewalks. Give me a break. Everyone should send flip-flops to his office.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Juice — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:10:58 -0000

I had no idea there was a town called Hometown. I wonder how they came up with that name?

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Rich Miller — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:03:25 -0000

===They donâ€™t have to vote to include something unrelated to get what they want.===

What planet are you from?

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

jackson — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:02:11 -0000

Rich,

I am not saying I agree with that. But I would point out that they would be different bills. They are not stuck in together. They don't have to vote to include something unrelated to get what they want.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Alex — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:59:05 -0000

In my district the member initiatives look like they are things that were pretty much needed except for one 300,000 pure pork handout. Looked them over and most look like they pass the smell test. Most, but not all.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Yellow Dog Democrat — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:50:07 -0000

Jackson - equipment purchases don't belong in a capital budget. Neither do minor renovations. Capital budgets are for construction.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Rich Miller — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:48:09 -0000

Jackson, the governor is using the capital plan to "grease" votes for his health insurance proposal. What's the difference?

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Yellow Dog Democrat — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:48:07 -0000

From John Patterson at the Daily Herald:

"Although Blagojevich bashed the spending, he could not name a single unworthy project when pressed by reporters."

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

jackson — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:46:06 -0000

Basically - if you want "pork", do it as part of a broader capital plan, not as a way to grease votes onto an operating budget.

I don't see a problem here with the Dems' position.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Who's Greasy? — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:44:59 -0000

Boss Hog should know all about PORK. his administration depends on it.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

jackson — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:42:31 -0000

Those projects belong in a capital budget, not an operating budget.

If they want projects for their district - infrastructure investments, and economic development - they need to pass a capital plan.

I see a difference.

Re: On pork and hypocrisy

Diamond Dog — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:40:43 -0000

The guy...just doesn't....get it. What else is there to say?