Feb 03 2008
Pork Party
The San Francisco Chronicle - believe it or not - points out an ugly truth: no matter which party controls Congress, that party inevitably becomes the party of pork. They note that the Democrats have become pork kings since they took charge of Congress, immediately taking the place of the Republicans who they denounced for the same behavior.
Pelosi also bristled at President Bush for asserting during his State of the Union speech, "The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks." Noting that Bush had no problem signing bills with pork-barrel spending sent to his desk by Republicans, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland dismissed Bush's born-again opposition to earmarks as rank "hypocrisy."
Bush is guilty as charged. He came too late to the anti-pork party. For all his tough talk about vetoing earmark-laden bills, Bush punted by refusing to curtail thousands of earmarks inserted into a massive spending bill he signed last month.
But the lesson of this dance of trading places is how quickly principles vanish when control of Congress changes hands. The Party of Pork is the party that happens to be in power at any given moment.
This time, the Democrats are on the wrong side of an issue they once so passionately championed.
Yep. That's why those of us keep pointing out that every voter should be against pork. It is an invitation to corruption, regardless who holds the reigns of power in Washington. That is our tax money they are spending and we should be telling them to stop it, regardless of party affiliation.
4 Responses to “Pork Party”
The San Francisco Chronicle dared to criticize Democrats? That could cost them their tinfoil caps.
Even during the years that the Republicans conrtolled congress the king of pork was a Democrat - Senator Jay Rockefeller of W. Virginia has been the acknowledged king for years.
No kidding, who would have imagined.
I just read that Dubya’s much-praised executive order banning earmarks only applies to *future* earmarks, not to this year’s budget! If he was so concerned about earmarks, why push it off to a future President to deal with? Oh, but it made for a good soundbite…
And as for the idea that “both sides are big spenders so both deserver equal scorn” - I wasn’t aware Democrats run as the party of small government. How about the party of fiscal conservatism? Don’t you think that if your marketing materials claim you’re one thing and you do another, that deserves more scorn compared to admitted tax and spend Democrats?
The problem is the hypocracy of the Republicans marketing themselves as fiscal conservatives, when in fact their just the “right” wing of a fat government turkey. IMO Republicans can no longer run as the party of fiscal conservatism. We’ll have to hand that off the Libertarians (wacky privacy nuts that they are..and so observant of that silly Constitution thing).
No mention of the privacy oversight board that Dubya is refusing to appoint anyone to? Makes it easy to circumvent privacy issues when there is no one on the board to monitor your actions.