Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > January > 28
Monday, January 28, 2008
Real clout will reside in eschewing those earmarks
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In his final year in office, George W. Bush could become the president fiscal conservatives wanted.
On Tuesday, he’ll sign an executive order directing the executive branch to ignore “earmarks” that are not actually written into law. Those are the pork barrel projects that individual members of Congress slip into committee reports or “manager’s statements” that accompany the language voted on by both houses. Earmarks gave us Alaska’s Bridge to Nowhere and, in Georgia, the Train to Lovejoy.
The president clearly has the authority, according to the Congressional Research Service, to ignore earmarks not contained in the text of legislation passed by the House and Senate.
His decision would have been all the more admirable had it applied to the 11,735 earmarks amounting to $16.9 billion included in the current year’s spending — and had he started earlier and disavowed the practice by the administration, as well. But nevertheless, this is a start.
In some respects, getting Bush to this point could be the script for a movie on “Tom Coburn’s War” or “Jeff Flake’s War” — a tribute to the senator from Oklahoma and the representative from Arizona who have aggressively pushed their party on earmarks.
When U.S. Rep. Tom Price (R-Roswell) was home for the Thanksgiving break, he announced that he would no longer ask for earmarks. His Republican colleague, Lynn Westmoreland of Grantville, said he, too, will decline to ask for earmarks in this year’s budget.
U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston of Savannah, a “repentant sinner” on earmarks, is among the leaders of an effort to declare a moratorium on earmarks until Congress can set rules for greater disclosure, advance notice and open debate.
As members of Congress were issuing statements eschewing earmarks and as the president prepared to announce that he’ll veto any spending bill that does not cut the number of earmarks in half, an interesting story appeared in the day’s news.
It was an Associated Press analysis of the $555 billion spending bill that President Bush signed last month.
Here’s the first paragraph: “Atlanta and other drought-stricken Georgia cities miss out on millions of federal dollars to repair leaky water infrastructure because the state’s congressional delegation lacks clout on key funding committees in Washington.” Its analysis revealed that 33 states got more money in earmarks for water and sewer projects, with Georgia getting “just $1.6 million.”
The media unwittingly are often advocates for more and bigger government — in large part because it’s the quickest and easiest “solution” to problems of crime, poverty, education, discarded children and other social ills. The solution, therefore, is to insist on more caseworkers, wiser supervisors or more teachers with smaller classes — and if those are not forthcoming from one level of government, we demand it of another.
It does not occur to me that the federal government should concern itself with leaky pipes in Atlanta or with a local road in south DeKalb — or with any other problem more properly the responsibility of city, county or state government.
Furthermore, for a nation at war, in the throes of disruptive global competition while wrestling with illegal immigration, health care financing, looming Social Security bankruptcy and the like, the last thing I want is members of Congress fixing potholes in Snellville or dripping faucets in Fayetteville.
Earmarks, like the one for commuter rail to Lovejoy, simply divert federal tax dollars from a legitimate transportation need to one that’s not — or marginal at best. Once the pork is in place, it then means state dollars are diverted, too. And, as with the rail line, it means local taxpayers may also be on the hook. And for what? Nothing ever identified competitively as a top priority or need.
Lack of clout? Shoot fire, man, that’s precisely why we get more and bigger government. Labeling members of Congress, or the entire delegation, as ineffective because they’re not the greediest porkers at the trough is why government grows. We make government officials spend and hire to prove they are “effective” in public office.
Permalink | Comments (111) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Wrap it up. Ted’s in.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Pack it up. We’re heading home. The Democratic race is over. Cancel the convention. Barack Obama’s it.
Oh, it’s not his showing in South Carolina, though he did pull 55 percent of the vote there to 25 percent for Hillary Clinton and 18 for John Edwards (and why’s he still in the race?). No, having gotten the endorsement of the Democrat’s 2004 loser, John Kerry, the only thing Obama needed to wrap it up was one more big endorsement from one of the party’s famous has-beens. That’s expected today.
According to The New York Times, Ted Kennedy will anoint Obama today “as part of a coordinated effort to lend Kennedy charisma and connections to the Illinois senator as he heads into a crucial 22-state showdown” on Super Tuesday a week from tomorrow.
Since I don’t expect to vote in the Democratic primary on Super Tuesday, my interest in the internals of Democratic politics is primarily that of a spectator bored with American Idol and looking for cheap entertainment. But I gotta tell you: There’s some real dysfunctional political families in that party.
The shocker was Kerry’s endorsement of Obama over the man that he had actually chosen to be the President of the United States just four years ago (had Kerry been elected and died in office). Now he tells us that Edwards was good enough to be President for us — but not the living him.
And now Ted. You think he’s high on the Clintons and then find it’s something else. The Times’ reporting is breathless about this: “Beginning with a joint appearance and rally in Washington on Monday, Kennedy, a major figure in party politics for nearly 50 years, intends to campaign aggressively for Obama…. Strategists see him bolstering Obama’s credibility for the office and providing particular benefits with union members and Hispanics, as well as the party base.”
In politics, you think they’re your friends and ideological soul-mates and Bam!, they’re about to drive off with somebody else. This endorsement may be big with the wing of the Democratic Party that resides in Vermont, San Francisco, Boston and some major cities, but Obama likely had those voters anyway.
As an aside, on Friday I was in Dublin, Ga., visiting with Rotarians. While there, they conducted a straw poll. The results for Republicans: John McCain (24), Mike Huckabee (15), Mitt Romney (6) and Rudy Giuliani (2). On the Democratic side, it was Hillary Clinton (6), Barack Obama (1) and John Edwards (1).
Obama was in Macon Sunday speaking at a black church. Edwards was in Dublin, where he was introduced to an after-church crowd at a downtown restaurant.
The Macon Telegraph reports that when Edwards was asked by one diner about his stance on gun control, he quickly replied: “I’m for the Second Amendment.”
State Rep. DuBose Porter, the minority leader of the Georgia House, quickly jumped in. “That’s why he’s down here,” he said. “You didn’t think I’d have him down here without that?”
“That’s the only thing I needed to know,” The Telegraph quotes the diner as saying before he sat back down to finish his meal.
Yes, the Ted Kennedy endorsement will do a lot for Senator Obama in the South.
Services »
