Lawmakers not ready to go pork-free

pork2.jpgJohn McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agree on at least one thing: Congress needs to curb its appetite for earmark appropriations for home district projects. But getting Congress to agree won’t be easy, regardless of who becomes president. The Senate last week voted overwhelmingly against a one-year ban on earmarks. Kansas Republican Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts were part of the majority opposing the ban. McCain was not happy. “This may be the last bastion in America where they don’t get it,” he said, “that Americans are sick and tired of the way we do business here in Washington.”

15 Comments

  1. SolDevVB
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 5:58 am | Permalink

    Pretty easy fix.

    Line

    Item

    Veto

  2. Regular
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    Some projects are worthy more than others. However, I can’t think of any project that isn’t already covered by a Federal Standard on funding and control of said funding.

    The correlation of pork and lobbying activity is directly proportional to the ‘Halls of Congress’ rhetoric expended. :)

  3. Bentley
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    McCain, surrounded by lobbyist advisers, sounds the battle hymn. Maybe he can send more business Airbus’s way. You can’t have Americans building airplanes when congress is sending out a stimulus package.

  4. Hud
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 6:20 am | Permalink

    Bentley, I assume you are including Hillary and Barack since they voted with McCain on this issue.

  5. SolDevVB
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 6:21 am | Permalink

    How about this, the federal government quits taxing us to death. Keep the money in the states and the states can do what ever project they need.

    Why are Kansan’s tax dollars funding a project in Michigan and vice versa?

  6. Hud
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    Sol, how would have the Big Ditch been funded if the money only came from Mass.?

  7. Phantom
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    Line item veto would only be a tool for the white house to keep congress in line with the pres.’s policies.

  8. SolDevVB
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    What do you see as the federal government’s role? I for one do see the federal government as neither my personal nor my state’s savior. If I don’t have a savings account and I face a catastrophe, it is not the government’s (state or federal) to bail me out. If a state faces catastrophe, it is not the Fed’s job to bail them out.

  9. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    Geez, toddy is against ethics reform AND a ban on earmarks?

    WTF do you guys send him to washington for?

  10. American Way
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    I think we need a constitutional amendment on the line item veto. It was tried once, I think and then challenged and discarded.

    Allow Line Item Veto and the president can line out items he opposes. Supposedly the Prez would cut pork, but more likely funds from the opposition party. Regardless, by using his pen, he is changing the role of congress, which is to appropriate the funds. So the budget/bill would go back to Congress to allow another vote. If it’s enough for an override, nothing gets cut. If there isn’t enough to override his cuts stand?

    That and a Balanced Budget Amendment…….

  11. Ben
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Bently – FYI – Alabama is part of the United States.

  12. TDT
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    If they had any concept of the problems facing main street Americans they would have OVERWHELMINGLY voted for a one year reprieve of pork barrel spending. There isn’t a project out there that is so urgent that it can’t wait 365 days.

  13. george
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    Polcticians are out of control when it comes to spending our money. Why are we not surprised at that?

  14. Right Angle
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Ben – FYI – France is not part of the United States.
    Neither is China. I think the contract should be rewritten to have all major parts made in the USA.

  15. Commonsense
    Posted March 18, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    why do we let the media and our politicians lead so blindly on this issue. Total earmarks are about $20B a year. I am sure there is a lot of waist in those. But its small to the total budget which includes mostly entitlement programs and defense. We spend $25B a month just on the war with Iraq which I am not debating here. My only beef with the media is they allow someone to get away with the statement that if we somehow curbed earmarks we could balance the budget. Its simply not true. In fact, other than a few bad cases that get all the press, earmarks is a way for a small state like ours to get some projects from good ideas originating from Kansas and not the federal government.

4 Trackbacks

  1. By Diet » Lawmakers are not ready to go on pork-free diet on March 18, 2008 at 7:11 am

    [...] unknownnHpork2.jpg Evangelist McCain, Barack Obama and venturer leader agreement on at diminutive member thing: assembly needs to bounds its craving for earmark appropriations for activity arrange projects. But try assembly to agreement won’t be easy, disregarding of … [...]

  2. By Lawmakers are not ready to go on pork-free diet | Presidential Candidates Watch 2008 on March 18, 2008 at 7:36 am

    [...] See the rest here: Lawmakers are not ready to go on pork-free diet [...]

  3. By Lawmakers not ready to go pork-free | Presidential Candidates Watch 2008 on March 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    [...] Read the original post: Lawmakers not ready to go pork-free [...]

  4. By sam brownback on March 21, 2008 at 4:59 am

    [...] emedicinetania raymonde pictureswhere were you lyrics by every avenuetrek madone 5.2 proLawmakers not ready to go pork-freeLawmakers not ready to go pork-free Yesterday5:02 a.m. John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton [...]