Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > November > 19
Monday, November 19, 2007
Effort would trim down those pesky pork projects
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
If fiscal conservatives ever walk away from the party that professes to share their beliefs — something entirely possible — the reason will be one “bridge to nowhere” too many.
Or one pork project, the $250,000 to build the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Prosser, Wash., identified by Citizens Against Government Waste, or the $135,907 for potato breeding in Prosser, identified by the Heritage Foundation.
The wine and culinary Center was added by U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, a Republican from Washington state, and by U.S. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both Washington Democrats. The potato breeding earmark was added by Hastings and by U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, another Washington Republican.
Earmarks exist in Georgia, too, of course. U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, a Savannah Republican, drew the ire of fiscal conseravtives earlier this year with the revelation that he was among the top 10 members of U.S. House in adding 26 earmarks to the defense appropriations bill.
At the time, Kingston defended earmarks, the single-member-designated appropriations that burst on the national scene two years ago with a $398 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska that would connect Ketchikan, a town of 8,900, to its airport on the Island of Gravina, population 50. The project was canceled in September by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Negative publicity about the bridge, which was being pushed by U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) undoubtedly contributed to the Democratic takeover of Congress. In victory, Democrats promised to cut the number of earmarks in half, from 13,492 in 2005, when Republicans were in control, to 6,746. The Office of Management and Budget reported in October that House spending bills contain 6,651 earmarks, while Senate bills add another 4,700.
Kingston, though, sees the handwriting on the wall. “The way things happen in this town, the earmarks controversy will flare up again and again for some reason — a kickback, a bribe, something dumb,” said Kingston. “Earmarks is the gift that keeps on giving in terms of journalism.”
About five weeks ago, he said, he and other members of the appropriations committee started meeting once a week, a group that included determined opponents of Congressional pork, such as U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and moderate Northeast Republicans.
The result is a resolution introduced Thursday calling for a moratorium on earmarks and the appointment of a 16-member House-Senate committee to hold at least five public hearings on reforming the earmarks process.
The moratorium would continue, Kingston said, until the committee reports back.
Among the reforms to be considered:
• Transparency.
• A prohibition against putting individual pork projects in any bill after initial committee consideration.
• A process for removing earmarks throughout their legislative journey.
• A requirement that earmarks be certified by bill sponsors and committee chairmen.
• A system for evaluating earmarks inserted by the administration, an example of which would be the $330,000 earmark for fire sprinklers in Boise, Idaho, inserted in an Interior appropriations at the request of President Bush.
The committee would have no deadline for reporting back. But as Kingston noted, the moratorium would exist until new rules are adopted. “The rules wouldn’t have to be adopted,” said Kingston, “but they would have to be reported. “If you had this committee and these hearings, the public scrutiny would be so strong that for them to come out with a report that would be ignored — that would just not happen.”
The resolution was introduced with 78 co-sponsors, including all the Republicans in the U.S. House delegation from Georgia. Kingston hopes to pick up at least 10-15 co-sponsors among Democrats.
Kingston is right. Earmarks are the gift that keeps on giving. The billions often don’t register. But the little pork projects do — and they drive voters mad.
Permalink | Comments (87) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Abortion: Any minds changing?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is the surprise among Republican presidential contenders. While he’ll not get the nomination, he’s moved into second place in Iowa (for what that’s worth, since it’s a caucus state) and is attracting converts elsewhere.
One topic Sunday was abortion, with Huckabee insisting on “Fox News Sunday” that the nation could not allow states to “have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong.” Continued Huckabee: “For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you simply can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right.”
Huckabee expressed surprise that the National Right to Life Committee has endorsed opponent Fred Thompson. “But my surprise was nothing compared to the surprise of people across America who had been faithful supporters of right to life… Fred’s never had a 100 percent record on right to life in his Senate career. The record reflect that. And he doesn’t support the human life amendment which is most amazing because that’s been a part of the Republican platform since 1980.”
Thompson, interviewed on “This Week” on ABC, said Roe v. Wade should be overturned with states deciding whether to allow abortions and under what conditions. “We need to remember what the status was before Roe v. Wade.”
My view tracks Thompson’s. Roe v. Wade is an example of court activism. Had the states been allowed to proceed, as they were doing in 1973 and before, to reach political agreement on abortion, the country would have been spared almost four decades of bitterness and polarization. Even now, abortion dominates the debate over U.S. Supreme Court nominations.
The question of the day: Has anybody changed his or her mind on abortion in the past 10-20 years? Is there any point in discussing it in a presidential campaign? I’m thinking no and no.
