Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > July > 30
Monday, July 30, 2007
Earmarks may get you one step forward — but four backward
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It’s 1776! Celebrate? No. Express frustration. Anger. Despair, even.
The inability of politicians to wean themselves from earmarks, the single-member-designated appropriations that brought us Alaska’s famed “bridge to nowhere,” persists, despite repeated signals from fiscal conservatives. Republican politicians, even those considered secure, should take heed of the 10th Congressional District of Georgia, where physician Paul Broun of Athens came from 23 points down to defeat shoo-in “incumbent” Jim Whitehead of Evans two weeks ago.
Whitehead wasn’t the actual incumbent. U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood was until his death in February. But Whitehead had aura, money and organization. His defeat was a shocker.
Earmarks weren’t his downfall, nor a factor in the race. The point here is that voters are in what should be for politicians an angst-inducing mood and fiscal conservatives hate earmarks.
Even in Japan the frustrated voter phenomenon is seen. The incumbent Liberal Democratic Party sustained a crushing defeat in weekend elections, with “household names in the party falling one after another before opposition newcomers,” reported New York Times correspondent Norimitsu Onishi from Tokyo.
Earmarks and their persistence in the face of overwhelmingly negative publicity last year help to set a mood among the electorate that in Washington special interest provisions and pork have irredeemably gummed up the works. And despite flipping both the House and Senate last fall, nothing’s changed.
Democrats, upon gaining a majority in January, swore off the pork. Publicly at least. Behind the scenes, though, as the Los Angeles Times reports, they’re back. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid touted the elimination of earmarks in a $363.5 billion spending bill. The day after the bill was signed, the Times reported, he started lobbying agencies to fund the same projects the Senate had just stripped out.
The 1776 that’s not to be celebrated is not independence year, but the number of earmarks individual members of the U.S. House of Representatives slipped into last week’s defense appropriations bill. A 19-term Republican, C. W. “Bill” Young, who represents a coastal district of Florida stretching north and south of St. Petersburg, led the pack with 59 earmarks. He was followed by Democrat John Murtha, a 37-year veteran who represents a western Pennsylvania district in the vicinity of Johnstown and Pittsburgh, with 46 earmarks.
Clearly, the old guys don’t get it. But surprisingly some of the young ones don’t either. U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston of Savannah is in the top 10 members of the House in defense appropriations bill earmarks, at 26. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco tossed in 15. Two Georgia Democrats had double-digit additions, with Sanford Bishop at 18 and Jim Marshall at 10. All three Georgians have major defense installations in their districts. Kingston and Bishop are on the Appropriation Committee’s defense subcommittee chaired by Murtha and Marshall is on Armed Services.
“On the earmarks debate, my philosophy is that you need to have sunshine,” Kingston said Monday, “you need to have scrutiny, you need to be able to tell people what you are putting in the budget and be able to justify it from California to Maine and back home, as well.” He continued:
“I’m not against earmarks, but they do need the scrutiny of the debate and that’s a good thing.”
Kingston said his earmarks come from requests offered up by the military affairs committees that support installations in his district, and some are for “gadgets” that the Pentagon thinks worthwhile, but doesn’t choose to include.
An example, he said, is unmanned aircraft, like the Predator, widely used in Afghanistan and Iraq, originally surfaced as an earmark inserted in the appropriations bill by Jerry Lewis, the second-ranking Republican on Murtha’s subcommittee. “Defense earmarks are a little less pork-barrelly and a lot more that the Defense Department is divided on what to do,” said Kingston, while visiting Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta.
Justifiable or not, earmarks are to members of Congress what roads are to county commissioners. Each one makes a friend at the risk of losing two — the two who paid the bill. And maybe two more — the two who read about the Road to Nowhere and went nuts.
Permalink | Comments (92) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
To be deported: Mom
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Is Maria Rivera a victim? She is an illegal immigrant from Mexico, a married mother of three, sitting in the Cobb County Jail awaiting deportation. Her offenses, initially described as driving without a license or proof of insurance and with an expired tag, are somewhat more serious, as is later revealed. She was previously deported for illegal entry in March, 2006. She turned around and came back the same year.
She perfectly illustrates the choice the nation has to make in determining how to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Efforts to fashion a comprehensive bill on dealing with illegals collapsed last month because much of the country had no confidence that Congress or the Bush Administration would secure the borders.
The Senate last week took a step in that direction, adding $3 billion to the Homeland Security funding bill to bring the Border Patrol to 23,000 agents by 2012, finish the 700 miles of border fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, double detention space to 45,000 beds and to add the sophisticated technology intended to bring the U.S.-Mexico boundary under operational control within two years. Bush had threatened to veto the additional spending, but may relent, since it passed 89-1.
The $3 billion would also be used to pursue those who overstay visas and the 632,000 illegals who have ignored deportation orders.
Cobb is doing its part.The Sheriff’s department is checking the status of inmates in the county jail. In four weeks, working with U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement agents, they’ve interviewed 86 inmates, putting immigration holds on 68 and filling out the paperwork to begin deportation proceedings against 42. It’s kind of shocking, actually, that of 86 interviewed, almost half are readily subject to deportation for illegal entry.
Undoubtedly some or even many of those subject to deportation will be like Maria Rivera, a parent with children in this country. Any born here are U.S. citizens.
But the fact is that if immigration law is to have any meaning, all illegals who come to the attention of law enforcement officials should be deported. During the recent national debate, legalization advocates made two points repeatedly. One is that by failing to secure borders and to police employers who hired them, the U.S. had sent an invitational message that illegal entry is OK. The other is that an easy route to legalization was the only alternative to “rounding up” 12 or 20 million illegals.
There is a third way. It’s what Cobb County and other law enforcement agencies across the country are beginning to do: Deal with illegals when they break the law. Shocking? Hardly. There’s no round-up, but Cobb’s action takes away the argument that intentionally failing to enforce immigration law is an implied invitation to illegals.
