The problem with this mentality is twofold. Most "pork" makes up such a minuscule amount of most major spending bills (usually 1% or less) that getting tied up on such a matter smacks of missing the forest for the trees. And on the other side of the equation, aren't politicians supposed to be looking out for the very locales that put them in office? Behind every trivial "hiking trail in Western Montana" is a real person, with a real job as a result, and thousands of constituents who'll enjoy the benefits of new community centers, playgrounds, civic buildings, and the like. Not all pork is bad. In fact, most of it isn't.
This is why I never liked the idea of President Obama making such a big deal out of eliminating "wasteful spending" when he took office, and really saw it as a tit-for-tat to neutralize a primary strength of his opponent. If he really wanted to save some money, he'd cut defense spending, which even in times of peace accounts for 35% of the annual budget, but of course nobody will go for that. It's much easier carping on welfare, which usually accounts for %0.10 of the annual budget. Worrying about $50,000 to fund some random study in Utah is like the woman who wants to lose weight, so she drinks a Diet Coke with her SuperSized Double Quarter Pounder w/cheese combo. Again, forest-trees.
Of course, Obama hasn't done anything to stop earmarks since taking office, just like he hasn't been able to curb the influence of lobbyists. The much maligned stimulus package contained more pork than a Denny's Grand Slam, with the Dems accounting for 55% of all earmarks. Obama, naturally, said it wouldn't happen "next time", and decried this as "last year's business". Anyone thinking they can come to DC and change such an ingrained culture (Bush Jr. said the same, BTW) is either being childishly naive, or just plain dishonest. This is how things get done here, and how things will always get done here. Period.
But none of this stops the GOP from making less gubb'ment waste an annual rallying cry, even as they look the other way and stuff every bill full of goodies for their home districts. Despite spending the whole Summer at Tea Parties blaming President Obama for saddling our grandchildren's grandchildren with debt, the fact that these same ingrates accounted for 45% of the pork barrel spending in the very stimulus package they voted against sure wasn't lost on me. So I sure hope the fine folks of "Real America" don't fall for the okey doke again this time.
Sen. John McCain, who should know, once complained that Congress spends money on earmarks like a drunken sailor. This spending spree seen by penny-pinching Republican taxpayers was one of the central causes why the GOP lost both houses of Congress by the 2008 elections.So, again, I repeat, the GOP had plenty of earmarks in this bill, yet again. But will this stop them from going around and repeating the fallacy that they're the party of "fiscal responsibility"? Of course not. Because if there's one thing teabaggers don't do, it's read.[1]
Now that the Democrats are in control, earmarks continue to pad appropriation bills but at a slightly lower level than when the Republicans were in charge. It’s still an obscene culture.
The watchdog group Taxpayers For Common Sense reported the omnibus spending bill passed by the House contains 5,224 earmarks costing about $3.9 billion of the total $447 billion measure. But, that’s only earmarks reported by House members voluntarily. Nor does it include the military spending bill which traditionally has more earmarks than all the other spending bills combined. That’s an average 12 earmarks for each House member.
No Republican voted for the bill but many of the projects included earmarks placed in the bill by the GOP before the final floor vote. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., is pushing $200,000 for the Washington National Opera. Sen. Judd Gregg, a fiscal hawk, is behind a $1 million earmark for renovation at the Portsmouth Music Hall.
Let this be a lesson for everyone: Pork isn't always bad. It's just bad when the Democrats are in power.
Politricks as usual.
Question: What do you think about earmarks? Is they always a bad thing, or should politicians be obligated to bring home the bacon to their constituents? Will the GOP's obvious hypocrisy about the use of earmarks come back to haunt them? Will Obama's obvious turning of a dead ear on the earmarks being thrown in the Omnibus bill come back to haunt him? Does anyone even give a sh*t about this issue, or is it purely election year populist pRon?
Fed Spending Falls On Deaf Ear(marks) [TheModerateVoice]
Watchdogs Cry Foul Over Thousands of Earmarks in Spending Bill [FoxNews]
[1] To John Boehner's credit, he actually hasn't ever taken an earmark. Too bad he can't rally his colleagues to do the same.
Got News? Email AB
The Average FAQ
Just Who Is AB?
Posts
12 AverageComments™:
The whole "pork" talking point is another right-wing smoke screen encapsulated in a short, easy-to-pronounce word (See: "Flip-Flop," 2004 Election).
The idea is to throw out enough of these that you virtually ensure that one or more will stick to each ig'nit voter.
It is like you said. Every administration and every representative comes in thinking or at least pretending they can change the way politics is done and then, of course, they don't. Anybody who has paid attention to the campaign of their local representatives has heard how they are going to go to Washington D.C. and clean up the mess or something like that. And nobody objects to the extra spending if it is being done in their area. So it goes on and will keep going on.
This sort of spending ought to be done on the state and local level, not on the national level. Why should WVa get tons of Federal money because they continually elect Byrd? Why should NC have gotten money because of Helms? If the money were going to be spent for the greastest public good, then I'd be all for increased Federal spending. Need an example of how Congressional power trumps public good? My area is within spitting distance of NYC. We have train and bus stations that provide direct access to the City. After 9/11 saw less money than towns in South Dakota (Daschele) and Alaska (Stevens). How in the hairy Hell does that make any sense?
@AB
"[J]ust like he hasn't been able to curb the influence of lobbyists."
Obama has been working to curb the influence of lobbyists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112602362.html
Paul is righ tthat this spending SHOULD happen on the state / local level. Part of the problem here is that the US Federal Government shouldn't give a shit about $50K for a nature trail in Montana. End of story.
Of course, this concept also presumes that the fed takes less money from the people, leaving some for the states to snag for projects like this. Every million bucks spent to refurbish John Murtha Regional Airport (average total flights per year: 30) could be spent funding Medicaid or paying down the debt.
Secondly, yes. This is an embarrassment to the GOP, and one reason it got massacred in 2006 and 2008. Boehner, Coburn, and other principled Republicans are slowly making headway but it's a long row to hoe.
Side note: it's worth noting that ZERO DEMOCRATS join the small group of earmark protesters in Congress.
Zero.
@MsNegroEsquire:
"Has been working to"? Please. He issued a blanket decision when he took office, then went about issuing a pile of waivers to the rule that basically rendered it pointless.
Oh, woe is him, it's so hard to stick to his guns. Nobody's buying it, despite the Post flying cover for him on yet another embarrassing campaign promise broken just weeks after he took office.
@ Spool
Dems in the Senate did vote against it. Not sure of your point.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/12/14/Democrat-calls-for-veto-of-spending-bill/UPI-17951260843550/
One thing for certain: Obama could gain some popularity points if he pushed back and told both parties to remove the pork. Of course, this isn't going to happen. Gibbs has already said as much.
The ear marks have to stay because that's how most of the people get votes. While campaigning they have to say thing like "When I'm in office I will work hard to restore the schools by fighting for federal dollars to......blah, blah, blah"
So to answer the question, no one really cares because they know it's par for the course. Just can't get away from T Woods if you wanted to.
If there's one person I never want to hear say the word "earmarks" again, it's McCain, since that's pretty much the only word he said during Campaign '08. Everything was "earmarks" this, and "earmarks" that, as if earmarks all by themselves had caused the then-newly unfolding economic collapse. IMO, it was one of the main reasons he seemed hapless and out of touch enough to swing enough voters to Obama.
And now here he is talking about them again! Argh.
I agree---not all pork is bad, and I've never understood why some people are so fixated on IT as the source of so much waste. Percentage-wise, there are much bigger fish to fry.
If you can't cut funding for the Woodstock Museum, you'll never fix SS or Medicare.
But to hell with all that. Let's add more programs instead! One thing IS for certain... it wasn't the earmark spending that clued me into the fact that Obama wants more spending.
@ Spool:
Hey, you be cuttin' mighty close to my neck o' the woods with that there statement. XD
Have you ever been to Woodstock? It's the only place I've ever seen real, live hippies (albeit ones in their 60s and 70s).
Never been to Woodstock but back in the day I used to drop into City Lights in San Francisco, and take the occasional stroll through Haight-Ashbury...
Post a Comment