Pork

Citizens, generally, are opposed to pork-barrel spending, except when the spending is for their own area. Pork-barrel spending, also known as earmarks, has been defined as projects that lawmakers insert into federal spending bills with little or no congressional oversight. Usually they reflect the priorities of individual lawmakers, even if relevant federal agencies conclude the projects arre unnecessary. A prime example was the appropriation for a big bridge in Alaska that led to nowhere. According to a recent report of the group Citizens Against Government Waste, Senator Bond was responsible for 142 such projects costing a total of 309 million dollars for the current fiscal year. Congressman Cleaver was responsible for 20 projects at a total cost of 17 million dollars, but Senator McCaskill was responsible for no such expenditures. Senator McCaskill thinks it is wrong and has taken a stand, even though it displeases many of her constituents. Congressman Cleaver takes the view that all of the other congressman are doing it and this is the only way that we locally can get our share of the federal money.
Who do you think is right, Senator McCaskill or Congressman Cleaver?
LSmith6100@kc.rr.com