Serious or just campaigning?
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You have to wonder if Senators Obama and Clinton are serious about reforming spending habits in Washington. They've signed on to the DeMint-McCaskill earmarks bill, but . . . um . . . they have some personal issues.
First, there is this.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year's spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, Clinton supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.
Then, of course, there's the fact that they will not take a stand on whether or not they'd continue to enforce President Bush's executive order designed to stop earmarks that have not been voted on in the normal legislative process.
It's one thing to put your name on a piece of legislation to generate a headline. It's a whole different, more important matter to see if they'll actually do the right thing when the cameras aren't on and the reporters aren't around.
We know John McCain will. He's willing to go on record.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | How the Democrats could lose EVERYTHING — Comments (13) »
Serious or just campaigning? 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I got to think that the apolitical citizenry around us can understand the problem with earmarks. No matter how you feel on issues, the idea that money gets spent on things other than the people's work has to steam you.
If you're conservative, you hate that dollars are being spent at all.
If you're liberal, you hate that the dollars are not being spent on your priorities.
Either way, pork is a losing proposition for all - except the self-interested districts that receive it. (PA-12, I think you can push your bloated body away from the trough, you've had quite enough.)
McCain wins the pork argument hands-down, now if only the GOP can get the message out...
"Where is the audacity of hope when it comes to backing the success of our troops all the way to victory in Iraq? What we heard last night was the timidity of despair. - John McCain
People are not going to get steamed about the representatives securing funding for programs they desperately want. Plus, you assume "pork" and earmarks are the same. They are not. Members of Congress have been securing funds for their constituents since the incepetion of this Republic.
It's fine to complain about pork generally, but once you get into specifics, you lose. The pork is there because people want it. They like their own pork... the pork they don't like is everybody else's pork. People want their representatives to bring jobs and infrastructure to their districts. Pork is how they do that. It has been a part of the process since the beginning and it will be there till the very end.
McCain shouldn't spend too much time campaigning on it, IMO. He needs to attack the level of spending and taxes generally, not just the tiny faction of the budget that goes to pork. That could be a winner.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
It shows the difference between substance/actions and speeches and promises.