According to the LA Times, the Democrats are saying they plan to eliminate earmark spending for the rest of the fiscal year.
ONE OF THE MASTERS of pork-barrel politics in Washington is the dean of the Senate Democrats, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. Eager to funnel tax dollars back to his state for roads, sewers, clinics and other projects, Byrd has been a tenacious defender of "earmarking" - the formal term for a lawmaker directing federal money to a pet local project.
That's why it was stunning to hear Byrd, the incoming chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, and his House counterpart, Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), announce that they wouldn't support any earmarks for the rest of the fiscal year, ending Sept. 30. All the projects previously approved by either the House or the Senate in nine yet-to-be-completed spending bills - nearly 10,000 projects costing about $17 billion, according to Citizens Against Government Waste - will be dropped.
Certainly they are to be congratulated for cutting GOP pork, but I doubt they'll be able to resist the urge to spend other people's money in their districts. They certainly don't mind making us pay for other people's healthcare, so they can't claim to have some principled argument against redistribution schemes.
I'm simply wondering how they plan to spin the first pork that they slip into some legislation next year.
If the liberals want to put their money where their mouth is, they can go to DownsizeDC. They have "Read the Bills", "Write the Laws", and soon to be "One Subject At A Time". This last bill will drastically reduce the pork-projects in the bills.
I believe that the Democrats will reduce one kind of Pork very effectively - That which is in Republican districts or benefits Republicans.
Anybody who believes that a party that is socialist at heart will reduce spending step into my office I have some prime beachfront property in Arizona to sell.
The Dems used pork as a wedge against Reps because it is unpopular (until your pork program is on the chopping block) and the Reps are in power. When the tables were reversed it was the Reps who railed against the evils of Pork (it's kind of hard to do so when your party built the "bridge to nowhere").
If our party won a majority our representatives would eventually feel the temptation to buy votes.
Pork is as old as Democracy itself. That is the problem with Democracy versus a Republic.
A Democracy is simply the justification of oppressing 49% of the population with the assent of 51%. A Republic recognizes that there are individual rights that the gov't. shouldn't ever touch. It is an unfortunate lesson of history that once the people in a Republic forget what guarantees their rights it first devolves into a Democracy and then some form of totalitarianism (Monarchies are just another form of this). Witness the Roman Republic's devolution into the Roman Empire.
Republican (of the era of the republic of Rome not the current party) politicians would use public money to entertain and feed the public and therefore buy votes. Eventually this led to the mob rule which led to the Emperors.
The only way to limit (never will we eliminate) pork is to cut the large programs (Social Security, personal and corporate welfare, etc.) and then cut taxes to a minimal level so there is less $ for them to play with.
If the liberals want to put their money where their mouth is, they can go to DownsizeDC. They have "Read the Bills", "Write the Laws", and soon to be "One Subject At A Time". This last bill will drastically reduce the pork-projects in the bills.
Posted by: Thomas at December 13, 2006 05:25 PM