Republican Pork

Remove all ads!

Earmarks and pork were all the rage for the Republican wing of Congress over the last few weeks. They were raging agianst Obama for his so-called "pork budget." Even McCain got in on the action with his usual rant about failed "campaign promises." But that's a different topic, and one in which Republicans should be experts on after GWB's failure at most of his promises.

The real topic here is that the Republican Congress is talking out of both sides of its mouth, while grandstanding about the "Obama pork" and then loading up on a pretty hefty portion of it for themselves. Remember Michele Bachman? Yeah, what a piece of work she is. She's the one who wanted those in Congress investigated who did not go along with GWB's idea of "good government." Then she denied having ever said it.

Anyway, she's fulll of her own pork -- again:

But we've been hearing the same song and dance frrom Republicans for the last few weeks.

Actually, they seem to be better for a good laugh now and again.

http://www.examiner.com/x-753-South...woman-Michele-Bachman-is-wounded-by-hypocrisy

 

LOL

Do we really need a thread to tell us that politicians are hypocritcal?

Just remember, at the end of the day, the Democrats control the White House, the House, and the Senate. They deserve all of the credit and/or blame for everything that happens. Something tells me that there are Democrats who are really concerned about the "blame" part otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to spread it to Republicans.

I also find it interesting that I keep seeing the ad from Sodahead in the alleys with the headline "Do you regret voting for Obama?" Instead of this being on Sodahead, I am curious if Zogby or Rasmussan or one of the other major polling companies is asking this question?

 

Well, pretty much every opposition party loves to talk about how the government is bloated and inefficient. You know, because the government is run by another party, and they want to criticize it. Plus, everyone loves the idea of paying less taxes and having less limitations. Populism sells, and the opposition party has to criticize the ruling one over something. Sure, the GOP was supposedly the party of leaner and more efficient government, but the last 8 years went Mythbusters on that concept.

Personally, I don't care that much about earmarks either way. If a project is important enough for a community, I don't see a problem with funds being dedicated particularly for it. As long as the project makes sense, there's little problem with how exactly it is financed - it's state money either way.

However, I'm not really sure what the problem would be. If the municipality of Lower Podunk gets $3 millions for infrastructure, and they want to spend 1 mil on buses, what is the difference if this million is in earmarks or not?

 

Obviously.

Do you regret having voted for GWB?

That "something" is probably FOX "News."

 

At the risk of sounding like the token blonde bimbo...do you mean pork as in pig? Or is there some weird US meaning here?

 

Pork Barrelling is a term that means "diverting taxpayer money to fund projects in your own constituency" -- it usually implies giving the other citizens the shaft, as in getting new park benches for the West district while the East district has more pressing needs like a new hospital. It's another way of calling a politician greedy, selfish, and unscrupulous.

Here's the wiki definition:

 

Ah right, cheers petal!

 

Yeah, most farmers I know are Republicans -- so that pork you're eating is most likely "Republican Pork."

Silvery: Pork is a common term for additional spending in a bill to gain support. Senator X won't vote for it unless you add a few million to a pet project of his -- which has nothing to do with the issue in the bill -- which will benefit the people who voted for him (or donated to his campaign). It happens all the time here.

 

My thinking on pork is that it's a necessary evil in a Democracy. One man's wasteful pork is another man's vital local project. When Senators like John McCain rail about wasteful pork, I applaud them - but when asked about his own spending priorities, McCain defends them as a necessary boost to his Arizona constituents, while people from other states may not think his constituents priorities are any less valuable than their own. I would expect nearly any Senator to say the same, it's part of how they keep their jobs. But it just makes the pork crusaders harder to take seriously.

That's not to say there are no actually wasteful spending programs out there, because there absolutely are (the Osprey helicopter being the best example I can think of). But it seems like nearly everyone does it, and even "wasteful" pork has upsides, like providing jobs. Having said that, it's often the "but it provides x-thousand jobs to my state" kind of arguments that keep bad programs alive for far too long.

 

Exactly. An earmark is not the same thing as pork. Not that the two are mutually exclusive either. But saying they are equivalent terms makes it sound like all earmarks are bad, which is silly. A earmark for a "bridge to nowhere" is pork and is bad. An earmark to pay $1 million for new buses may be completely reasonable. (Were the buses 20 years old and in need of replacement?)

 

AFAIK McCain has never added earmarks or pork to any bill. If he wants funding he submits it as a bill on its own.

I think a bill should just be the bill. If anyone needs money, it should be voted on -- not added to an unrelated bill. There are many excellent projects funded by earmarking, and they should be funded -- I would just rather they go through the normal process for a bill. Earmarking is simply laziness on the part of lawmakers and should not be allowed.

 

I remember reading a piece critical of McCain's record on pork not matching his rhetoric, but it was some time ago. I can't even remember who published it. You may be correct. I do however remember him picking for his running mate the person who was #3 on his own list of the worst pork-offending Governors in America.

 

Mccain has asked for a few earmarks, there are very few politicions that haven't asked for a few. However some of the members of congress have gone overboard.
Check out this list of votes on 19 earmark issues.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/07/435_districts_435_blogs_agains.php
Notice that earmarks infect both parties to a much too large percentage & the longer they have been there, the greedier it seems that they get.
Term Limits Damnit!!!!!! We need term limits!

 

I agree, the creation of the "professional politician" was one of the worst things we ever created.

 

You caused me to think of this quote, TGS:

 

I remember an extremely obnoxious green party member of parliment here in Sweden a while back. He was the youngest parliment member ever I think, barely 18 when he got his seat and he got a lot of airtime and was quite active. I personally found him horrendously obnoxious and disgustingly self righteous but what he did do that made me think a bit was that he sat one term and then didnt sign up for re-election. He said that he thought parliment members should only sit one term so he resigned from politics at the age of 22. Now, much of this was probably the idealism of youth but I thought you guys would like the story. I personally am torn, experience is good but so is getting new perspectives. One term is a bit low but having members of any governing body sit for 30+ years is I don't know, is it even remotely possible for them to relate to their voters?

 

If they represent a small, rural constituency and they make a point of spending time with the people they are supposed to represent, I suppose that they can relate to them to a degree, but I think a certain degree of stagnation would likely set in. I'm torn too on the idea of term limits -- if you have a really amazing statesman (stateswoman -- statesperson?) I think it's a shame to force him / her out just on the basis of term limit laws. Conversely, if you have a really slimy fish in office who knows how to manipulate the electorate, it's nice to know that (s)he'll eventually be gone come hell or high water.

 

I support term limits. Without them, the corpse of Ronald Reagan would be president now.

 

Mr. Gorbechev, tear down...wall...hrmm...braaaaaiiinnzzzzzz...

 

Awesome.