Pork Barrel Spending: Why is it so bad?

According to the Chinese calendar, 2007 is the Year of the Pig. We hear about "Pork Barrel Spending" or "earmarks" all the time when we hear about congressional spending. Supposedly this is when a representative sets aside an amount of money to send to a special project in his or her district.

It helps them get elected.

But besides the politicians, who really benefit from these "earmarks"?

A lot of time, its the people who contribute the most to the Representative's campaign

I'm going to use Lockheed Martin, as an example. Their F-22 Raptor has funding through 2009, even though the Raptor is obsolete, and the Government Accounting office has asked the Defense Committee to stop funding for the project. They build 20 a year, at a cost of $120 Million per ($2,400,000,000 total).

In return, Lockheed Martin gave Georgia Senators Saxby Chambliss $21,000 and Johnny Isakson $23,500 (there is a large complex of Lockheed Martin in Marietta Georgia), and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) $10,500 (who is on the Defense Appropriations sub-committee) between 1999 and 2004.

That's a pretty good return on your investment. Especially when you are selling a plane who's updated replacement (F-35) costs $35 million each (also made by Lockheed Martin).

That $183,200 they gave to our government officials during only this six year period, costs every taxpayer about $18.35 every year.

This is a disgrace, and it is the major reason that our government no longer thinks it answers to us.

This isn't a Republican Problem (though the Republicans always seem to get the most money) or a Democrat problem (though since they took over Congress earlier this year "earmarks" are at its at its lowest level since 1999).

This is a government problem, and its time we start to let our Representatives (local, state and federal) that we're on to them, and we're going to make a change soon.