More Pork: Government as Usual
From Earmarking to Phonemarking, an essay by Chuck Colson on 5/29/07 contains these opening paragraphs (in green):
Just four months ago, the new Democratic majority in Congress vowed to curb earmarks and run the cleanest Congress ever. Not everybody believed them, but I for one gave them the benefit of the doubt. No more spinach subsidies, no more “fact-finding” tours to the Caribbean. No more bridges to nowhere.
The new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, bragged about how transparent the new government was going to be.
How does an experienced politician brag about new changes one moment and then a short time later return to the same old pork barrel policies? Which is more stupid- politicians doing this or voters putting them in office? Surely one with as much experience as Pelosi should have been aware of requirements for true reform. How could she have been surprised or blindsided? Did she make a genuine effort to reform or were we hoodwinked? More from Colson's essay:
As the Post noted, Reid sent a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman pointing out that the funding bill contained no earmarks. True. But then Reid noted that the legislation set aside $300 million in new money for research in energy efficiency and renewable energy. He suggested that some of this money be used to reverse the administration’s plan to cut its geothermal-energy research program. Reid demanded that the administration fund this program at 2006 levels or higher—something that would benefit Reid’s state of Nevada.
Another Democratic leader whose home turf would benefit from spending policy "reforms." And there is more to this sordid tale:
How about Nancy Pelosi, who was going to lead the charge to clean up Congress? One of the new Democratic reforms demanded that House members certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in earmarked projects. But here is Pelosi asking for $25 million to improve the San Francisco waterfront. She kept quiet about the fact that her own family owns interests in four buildings near the proposed project.
Is this an ethical violation?
And the king of pork, Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, threatened a Republican for challenging one of Murtha’s earmarks, telling him, “You’ll never get any earmarks now or forever.” And when Congress moved to censure Murtha, it failed on a party-line vote.
This is nothing but blatant, log-rolling, power politics—sickening, in fact. Lawmaking is supposed to be about advancing the common good—not wheeling and dealing in order to hang onto power. I was disgusted when the Republicans got elected to clean up this kind of stuff and didn’t. Now the Democrats are back in power and doing it all over again.
This is disheartening but perhaps Americans are getting what they deserve. Not all of course but those who codone hypocrisy to advance ideological concerns make corruption inevitable.
Just four months ago, the new Democratic majority in Congress vowed to curb earmarks and run the cleanest Congress ever. Not everybody believed them, but I for one gave them the benefit of the doubt. No more spinach subsidies, no more “fact-finding” tours to the Caribbean. No more bridges to nowhere.
The new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, bragged about how transparent the new government was going to be.
How does an experienced politician brag about new changes one moment and then a short time later return to the same old pork barrel policies? Which is more stupid- politicians doing this or voters putting them in office? Surely one with as much experience as Pelosi should have been aware of requirements for true reform. How could she have been surprised or blindsided? Did she make a genuine effort to reform or were we hoodwinked? More from Colson's essay:
As the Post noted, Reid sent a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman pointing out that the funding bill contained no earmarks. True. But then Reid noted that the legislation set aside $300 million in new money for research in energy efficiency and renewable energy. He suggested that some of this money be used to reverse the administration’s plan to cut its geothermal-energy research program. Reid demanded that the administration fund this program at 2006 levels or higher—something that would benefit Reid’s state of Nevada.
Another Democratic leader whose home turf would benefit from spending policy "reforms." And there is more to this sordid tale:
How about Nancy Pelosi, who was going to lead the charge to clean up Congress? One of the new Democratic reforms demanded that House members certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in earmarked projects. But here is Pelosi asking for $25 million to improve the San Francisco waterfront. She kept quiet about the fact that her own family owns interests in four buildings near the proposed project.
Is this an ethical violation?
And the king of pork, Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, threatened a Republican for challenging one of Murtha’s earmarks, telling him, “You’ll never get any earmarks now or forever.” And when Congress moved to censure Murtha, it failed on a party-line vote.
This is nothing but blatant, log-rolling, power politics—sickening, in fact. Lawmaking is supposed to be about advancing the common good—not wheeling and dealing in order to hang onto power. I was disgusted when the Republicans got elected to clean up this kind of stuff and didn’t. Now the Democrats are back in power and doing it all over again.
This is disheartening but perhaps Americans are getting what they deserve. Not all of course but those who codone hypocrisy to advance ideological concerns make corruption inevitable.
Labels: Politics
posted by Paul at 6:40 AM
0 comments
