GOP Congressman Demands More Pork
Compared to the waste, fraud and mismanagement of most government spending, earmarks are a drop in the bucket. That's why many people don't worry too much about them.
But some of those who oppose earmarks do so because they lead to an explosive growth in spending. If no one would have voted for some horrible bill unless they each hadn't been bought off with tiny earmarks, that means that we could have avoided a horrible bill without earmarks.
Besides, if there's one thing Republicans should have figured out by now, it's that voters are fed up with out-of-control spending and gimmickry by both parties. Perhaps someone should tell Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama. According to Reuters:
Few members of Congress have been bold enough to use the "e" word since both the House and Senate temporarily banned the practice last year after public outcries about Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" and other pork barrel projects.
But as lawmakers wrestle with legislative paralysis, there are signs that earmarks - special interest projects that used to be tacked onto major bills - could make a comeback.
"I just got up ... and did it because I was mad because they were talking about how we can't get 218 votes," Rogers told Reuters, referring to the minimum of 218 votes needed to pass legislation in the 435-member House.
"There was a lot of applause when I made my comments. I had a few freshmen boo me, but that's okay. By and large it was very well embraced," he added.
New Republican members backed by the Tea Party movement have railed against earmarks as a symbol of out-of-control government spending and unaccountable lawmakers.
I guess the good news is that he got booed by some freshmen.
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
May '10
Re: GOP Congressman Demands More Pork
Look for the GOP to go right back to the lazy bloated habits that got them booted in 2006. Few of them seem to understand this is their last chance. Regrettably most of them would be happy in the minority, with the country sailing over the fiscal cliff as long as they and their buddies get their piece of the action.
Jul '11
Re: GOP Congressman Demands More Pork
Nick Stuart, well put! The GOP can resign itself to the dung heap of history if they get the majority and go about swindling, cheating, kickbacking, bribe receiving, and pork barreling their way through politics.
This will be my last vote for the GOP if they do not fix or attempt to fix our fiscal issues as well as behave ethically.
If the alternative then is a quicker fiscal collapse and civil war the so be it as that corrupt and inept GOP leads us there as well albeit a touch slower.
Oct '11
Re: GOP Congressman Demands More Pork
If passing a bill, any bill, means we have to fill a special trough for the swine to gorge themselves, that's a strong indication that bill is something we're better off without.
Jul '10
Re: GOP Congressman Demands More Pork
Waste is wasteful, yes. I agree wholeheartedly that "legislative paralysis" isn't cause for concern, let alone a bribe.
But isn't that a loaded definition of pork? If that is our definition (riders attached to build support through bribery) then I'm four square against. It isn't a silly definition, but it may be a bit misleading.
It seems self-evident to me that our country could benefit from limits on how federal revenues are spent... which is what ear-marks are, literally.
Or should we prefer to grant more discretion to the ever growing executive bureaucracy?