The
Washington Post editorial board has been particularly on-point in the past couple weeks regarding the fiscal insensibility of the Republican leadership these days, up to and including the president. They've got another good editorial today, "
Big-Government Conservatives."
As they say, "
Mr. Bush, who had threatened to veto wasteful spending bills, chose instead to cave in. He did so despite the fact that in addition to a record number of earmarks the transportation bill came with a price tag that he had once called unacceptable. The bill has a declared cost of $286 billion over five years plus a concealed cost of a further $9 billion; Mr. Bush had earlier drawn a line in the sand at $256 billion, then drawn another line at $284 billion. Asked to explain the president's capitulation, a White House spokesman pleaded that at least this law would be less costly than the 2003 Medicare reform. This is a classic case of defining deviancy down.
The nation is at war. It faces large expenses for homeland security. It is about to go through a demographic transition that will strain important entitlement programs. How can this president -- an allegedly conservative president -- believe that the federal government should spend money on the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana? Or on the Henry Ford Museum in Michigan? The bill Mr. Bush has signed devotes more than $24 billion to such earmarked projects, continuing a trend in which the use of earmarks has spread steadily each year. Remember, Republicans control the Senate and the House as well as the White House. So somebody remind us: Which is the party of big government?"
Democrats, centrists, and responsible Republicans have an important opportunity here. Government by pork-project is not what Americans want, and something has to give. Who will stand up for responsible budgeting and government spending? The question is not over the worthiness or unworthiness of any specific earmarked provision in the bill - some may be quite worthy, some are notably not so - but of the way those earmarks are slipped in and voted on. We deserve better than what we're getting.
8 Comments:
Jeremy - this is a really excellent blog. I appreciate your thoughtful introspection. There is way too much knee-jerk politics on both sides of the political spectrum.
My god this is getting out of control
Thanks blue moon. Welcome aboard, feel free to visit anytime, and comment whenever you like.
The TransPORKtation Bill may be a good piece of job-creation legislation but at what cost ? In Minnesota, the Governor vetoed a bill to raise the gasoline taxes during the last legislative session. The legislature wanted to address the congestion issues especially in the Twin Cities area, but the Governor who took a NO-New-Taxes-Pledge would not relent. So, where there is need ( the Twin Cities ) there will not be construction; but where the State does not see a need, the TransPorktation Bill will fund highway construction ( see below ).
Is Minnesota unique in getting projects that they do not want ? If you know of any in your areas, please add a thread to this post. I always hear about some county getting a bridge that they did not want and would be interested in your input.
The spending at the Federal leave takes me back to my college days, Mom & Dad paid the tuition and the credit card was always available whenever I needed it ... but once I graduated the bills came due ... Bush may be correct that there is a Social Security problem in 2018, but I think we have a spending problem in 2005.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
$50 million for Hwy. 53, but no state request
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WASHINGTON -- The recently passed highway bill includes $50 million to expand a highway between the Minnesota cities of International Falls and Virginia, even though state transportation officials did not ask for the money.
Rep. Jim Oberstar, the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, got the money inserted into the six-year, $286.4 billion transportation bill. The money will be used to expand a 20-mile section of U.S. Highway 53 between Virginia and Cook from two lanes to four; and then add passing lanes in the 70 miles between Cook and International Falls.
Brad Larsen, federal relations manager at the Minnesota Department of Transportation, said his agency did not request the money.
Larsen said the project will improve safety, especially by helping eliminate head-on collisions. But he said the route is not one of the highest traffic areas in the state.
Oberstar, who represents the district, said through a spokeswoman that earmarks are necessary because rural areas are often neglected.
Last year, a Minnesota Department of Transportation report recommended against expanding the highway to four lanes all the way to International Falls, concluding the cost didn't justify the need based on traffic volume.
I once saw an idea on another blog which was to introduce a requirement that legislation had to be on a single topic. The idea was to kill one method of pork distribution, wherein a completely unrelated item, usually giving money to someone's district, is inserted into a bill on another topic that needs to be passed. And so you could not stick an allocation of money to a visitor center into the transportation bill. Instead, it would be part of the parks bill. In may ways, I really like the idea. The huge problem is defining what one topic is. That blog never took up the issue. Any thoughts here? Is there a way to control what goes in a bill so that they are all related?
Pacatrue, it has been awhile but if I remember my rules there should already be enough tools for the leadership to clamp down on pork. Traditionally, the rules for big bills in the House will regulate how many amendments can be offered or have a germaneness requirement but the Senate does not work that way. What the Senate does have is the Byrd Rule for the budget. During the conference, Senators can challenge the germaneness of some parts of the budget. It is up to the parliamentarian to rule on the challenge. A disciplined leadership in the House and a credible veto threat is usually enough to curb the excesses of Senators. The problem is that we don’t have ether of those safe guards.
paca - A's right. There are a bunch of rules and things that just need to be enforced and followed. I'm going to work up a post on those sometime in the very near future, probably within the next couple days. There are also some moves afoot (particularly from McCain) to pass legislation mandating that those rules be followed and I'll try to get those proposals all in one place too. But yes, A's exactly correct - without a credible veto threat and a dedicated House leadership, it's hard to control spending discipline at all.
I should say that BBQ pork is quite yummy though. I'm partial to Texas style, but I can get by with a sweet Carlina sauce if I am forced to.
Post a Comment
<< Home