Imagine a place where bank robbery is not a crime. Where people can walk up to teller windows and take money to spend on any outrageous, egregious thing that they want, and no one stops them. That’s the problem that we have with egregious pork barrel spending on Capitol Hill. To 
make matters worse, the only people that can make this form of robbery a crime, are the same people who are robbing the bank!
Well, then imagine that the public, who are the depositors at the bank, are becoming more and more outraged that their savings are being withdrawn "at gunpoint" to be spent on billions of pork-barrel projects. So, these robbers, who happen to be the Board of Directors of the bank, have to do something to try to mollify the concerns of their depositors. So what do they do? You would think that they would simply STOP robbing the people’s bank, and put an end to this terrible self-defeating practice?
No.
Instead, they have engaged in a sidebar discussion that is not about whether we ban this form of robbery, but rather we are now talking about installing more and better surveillance cameras in the bank. Of course it is a good idea to have a great system for understanding how and who are plundering the people’s money, but the debate really misses the point. Having a great surveillance system in place doesn’t really matter as long as robbing the bank isn’t a crime.
I certainly applaud all of those in the U.S. House of Representatives who want to increase transparency in the earmarking/pork barrel system. We featured a column yesterday from U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy and today Republican Leader John Boehner has an extensive column in the Wall Street Journal, all about House Resolution 479 to increase transparency in the pork barrel system (analogous to installing more ‘cameras’ in the bank lobby). But where is the House Resolution, backed by all the Republicans, to implement Congressman John Campbell’s (a true leader in fighting to stop the robbery) objective criteria for all proposed earmarks, so that we can end this wanton looting of American taxpayer dollars to pay for so much egregious pork?
In the case of California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, his personal record of voting against pork (check it out here) is better than most. But when I see some of the worse offenders who were ranked terribly by the Club for Growth in their RePORK Card all rallying behind H.R. 479, I am amazed. It takes a high degree of hubris to for bank robbers to call for more and better cameras in the bank lobby…
I don’t want to dampen the enthusiasm for doing something, anything to make it even slightly more awkward for the "bank robbers" in Congress. But to make the ugly and egregious pork barrel spending process more transparent without, at the same time, decrying the specific egregious spending and condemning all of those who engage in the practice (in many cases, this would mean taking out a mirror), seems like a specious tactic at best.
If earmark reform is truly going to be a clarion call for Republicans, wouldn’t it be more honest to champion transparency AND also admit that the GOP has played too complicit a role in egregious earmarking, and simply STOP it?
Or is the addiction to pork simply too strong? Egregious spending is wrong, whether it is championed by Democrats like Rep. John Murtha or Republicans like California’s own Jerry Lewis.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Once again, Jon, you are off the rails. This is a FIRST STEP to curb earmarks. And a darn good first step too. Shining sunlight on earmarks lets us all know what and who. Some may be good (think parks for our kids) and some may be bad (think that bridge in Alaska). But good or bad, transparency is a good first step, don’t you think?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Bob, the problem is that we are now the minority party in Congress. In order to regain the majarity, we don’t have the luxury of offering a tepid alternative. In order to enegergize our base, and reclaim the mantle of being a party of fiscal prudence to the centrist votes, we need to be clear — all *egregious* pork is wrong, is bad, and Republicans don’t introduce them, or vote for them.
Right now, we can’t say that. Right now, many GOP Congressmen are playing a LEAD role in this horrible status quo “Inside the Beltway” — and we don’t have the luxury of time.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon, are you talking about a fine Republican Congressman like John Doolittle from the northern California area? I know that John Doolittle doesn’t say what his earmarks are (in contrast, Republican Congressman Dan Lungren from the northern California next door to John’s area puts all his earmarks on his web page) but this first step will force John Doolittle to do the same as Dan Lungren. That is a good step to take, don’t you think?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:00 am
The “good first step” took place when Club for Growth came out with their RePORK Card. As a result of the RePORK Card, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt who are the big spenders and who aren’t. And by the way, since you mentioned John Doolittle, he scored a 2%… the average score for a big spending Liberal Democrat… except John claims to be a Republican.
So Bob, how many “first steps” do you need?
And by the way, John Doolittle is all for this transparency… but funny thing he refuses to disclose his earmarks. Think about that for a second, he takes our money, spends it, and then he will not tell us where he spends it. A “good first step” would be Doolittle showing a little leadership and disclosing his earmarks.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Yes Ken, the call for telling us in advance what earmarks a congressperson proposes is a very good thing. The “report card” you mentioned is finger pointing because it is after the fact. We will all know up front who and what, unlike now when we know only after the fact, if at all. It is a GOOD FRIST STEP but only a first step. The next step is followup on each earmark to make sure the money is truly needed and is spent for the intended purpose and not just lining the pocket of some favored friend (or relative).
September 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Another good point is this Jon, Kevin McCarthy’s record on this issue is not like John Campbell’s.