who's your nanny?

Worst Waste of 2008?

Today's DC Examiner editorial points to a report by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who documents what he calls the worst wasteful spending of 2008.

While Coburn's attempt to provide visibility to congressional pork is laudable, a close inspection of this report reveals that the funding projects he highlights amount to a "mere" $1.3 billion of federal spending. Interestingly, the Iraq war cost about 100 times more than this in fiscal year 2008, but Coburn fails to itemize this in his list. No mention either of the war in Afghanistan or the vast majority of federal education spending, which stood at roughly $60 billion.

Though both Coburn and the Examiner accurately chronicle total federal spending (almost $3 trillion) and the resulting deficit ($455 billion) our federal lawmakers have racked up, it's ridiculous to focus on spending that amounts to less than one-tenth of one percent of the total and attempt to pass that off as the greatest waste of taxpayer dollars.

McCain the Billionaire

After he confiscates all your money, that is, to fund his programs advancing entitlements, welfare, and murder.

Good thing he still rails against the pittance the feds spend in earmarks, though!

The Truth About Earmarks

I'm increasingly frustrated with "conservatives" who attack earmarks by advancing the myth that reducing or eliminating them would bring federal spending into check, all the while endorsing mammoth outlays for defense spending and any number of other government agencies, boondoggles, and entitlement programs that comprise the vast majority of the budget and result in continual government expansion.

I too would like to see lobbyists and bureaucrats cut off from the federal teat or to at least bring more transparency to the earmarking process, but earmarks serve to return taxpayer money whence it came and do not increase federal spending one whit, as Ron Paul recently explained before Congress.

"Now That I Can't Spend My Way To the White House Anymore.."

I didn't bother watching Bush's SOTU address last night, but from what I've read I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

In a pathetic entreaty to gullible conservatives, Bush called for Congress to exhibit fiscal restraint in order to prevent an economic recession. I suppose that's easy to say now that the president will no longer be the primary beneficiary of profligate government spending.

Atop his goals is a supposed crackdown on congressional earmarks. Forgive me for not jumping for joy over this, as a little more attention paid to out-of-control federal spending the past term and a half may have actually helped to prevent decent Republican governors across the country from being swept from office in 2006 merely for having an 'R' next to their names. Thanks to Dubya, Maryland is once again a one-party state of jackasses.

While I oppose just about all federal spending -- especially the type that's attached to a bill without any oversight, debate, committee up or down vote or any rules whatsoever -- earmarks do not increase spending; they merely transfer it from the executive to the legislature.

So before all you die-hard Bush-lovers start getting all tizzed up about your boy's plans to "save the economy," you'd be wise to note that earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to the $12 billion a month we're pissing away on unwinnable wars, which constitute the main reason the economy's in the shitter in the first place.

Federal Spending Database Is Great

But I wonder how effective it can be in actually reducing the "pork" forked out by Congress.

In an editorial today, the Washington Examiner rightly celebrates the launch of USASpending.gov, the federal, google-like database mandated by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, and asserts that Congress's "pig roast with tax dollars is coming to an end."

The ability for taxpayers to monitor how their money is spent in Washington is an undeniably good thing (for taxpayers anyway), but while the database allows us to track federal contracts and assistance doled out by the government, it doesn't specifically denote expenditures that qualify as "pork" -- funding inserted into spending bills without oversight, debate, an up or down vote, or any rules whatsoever (if memory serves, I believe our congressmen were successful in having this requirement extricated from the original bill).

In any event, everyone should take some time to play around with the new database, as it's actually quite interesting. I did a little search on Rep. Steny Hoyer, who represents the Maryland district where I live, and found that almost $1.8 billion in federal contracts was awarded to contractors in his district. However, this doesn't mean that all of this money -- or much of it, for that matter -- can be described as "pork." Given that the Pax River navy base resides in Hoyer's district, there's a large defense contractor presence in the area that benefits from a ton of this money -- most of which must by law be entirely visible.

So, I don't necessarily share the Examiner's optimism that this new spending database -- at least as it stands today -- will provide enough insight into porkbarrel spending to cause a meaningful reduction in congressional spending and pandering to special interests. Unless I'm missing something, we quite simply don't have this information at hand on this system as yet to be able to hold our representatives accountable. That said, this is a great start, and it's always better to have more insight than less.

Fed Up With Fat Government?

Check out this good article by Mark Tapscott on the train wreck that is the U.S. Congress. Mark reports that three out of four Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing overall. If you're part of that group, there's one good way to effect immediate reform: vote Ron Paul 2008.

Too Chicken to Fight for Freedom

I guess we should be happy the Club for Growth has finally acknowledged Ron Paul's tenacious fight for the presidency.

Until recently, the Club hadn't even included Rep. Paul with the likes of Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback in their economic profiles of the candidates. You'll note that the Club released Brownback's record on economic issues way back in February, and only this week released a white paper for Ron Paul.

I'm not exactly sure why the Club suddenly decided to profile Dr. Paul, but maybe they figured it looked a little silly to ignore him when they've already compiled a scorecard for a guy who's not even in the race anymore. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Paul raised as much money as John McCain in the third quarter and trails only Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in primary cash on hand.

So congratulations to the Club for Growth for finally waking to the idea that the only truly pro-growth Republican in the race deserves some recognition. Maybe my inner cynic is coming out to play here, but I don't believe this has to do with anything other than trying to save face. After all, Ron Paul refuses to go gently into that good night, and only the fool still clings to the belief that Paul is a sideshow -- a "kook," a "pencil head" -- as he spreads his message of freedom and liberty.

But that doesn't mean the Club won't still do its best to discount Paul's viability. Indeed, Club president Pat Toomey analogizes Ron Paul as "the perfect as the enemy of the good."

"While we give Ron Paul credit for his philosophical ideals, politicians have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul votes against making progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect," Mr. Toomey continued.

That's right, folks. Ron Paul is just "too principled" for America. Apparently, the Club for Growth would rather only endorse candidates for president who are kinda-sorta pro-growth. Toomey criticizes Paul for opposing "free trade" agreements primarily composed of terms dictated by the U.S., and federal school choice programs that are no business of the federal government. Fair enough, Mr. Toomey, but just don't go around touting your organization as dedicated to economic growth. That the federal government deigns to regulate (i.e., limit and control) trade or education in the first place is abhorrent and is the very antithesis of pro-growth policy.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of the Club's white paper on Ron Paul is the insistence to not just find, but emphasize, the (supposedly) negative in Paul's policy when it does the opposite for virtually every other Republican candidate. Go ahead and read Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani's reports for starters and tell me they don't read as if the Club's trying to turn a prostitute into a prom queen.

But Ron Paul? Hey, he's essentially perfect -- indeed, he's "ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies" -- but Paul's supposed opposition to "all but the perfect" will apparently spell our country's turn to disaster should he win election in 2008.

In short, I've never read anything so bizarre in all my life. The Club for Growth ostensibly exists to fight for principles of economic growth, yet it categorically denounces the one presidential candidate it admits is the most economically principled. It laughably suggests that because Ron Paul insists on possessing a voting record that is consistent -- in other words, what Ron Paul says is what Ron Paul does -- "we might never get a chance to pursue the good too."

I don't know exactly where the Club for Growth has been lately, but our politicians in Washington have been shoveling a lot of crap for a long time now. And as far as this writer is concerned, I'm about ready for our lawmakers to pursue nothing if "good" means continuing to settle for a federal government that will maintain and likely extend its collective control over virtually every waking minute of my life.

Honest Thieves

Back in January, I wrote an article urging Maryland lawmakers to pass legislation that would establish a Web-based tool allowing taxpayers to readily track state spending, providing more transparency and accountability in government. Needless to say, most of the state's politicians were in no mood to subject themselves to increased scrutiny and hastily squashed a bill introduced to create a paper trail between them and our money.

Today, Jacob Sullum writes an interesting piece explaining why more publicity and openness may be overrated. Simply put, too many politicians are proud of their earmarks even if they shouldn't be, and it's not as if the public tends to complain too loudly about handouts.

Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.

Touché.

Thanks, but No Thanks

Ever notice how politicians never seem to act on the problems facing their constituents until it's too late? I'm not talking about social or corporate welfare here, or even about handouts to special interests in the form of grants and earmarks. Politicians always seem to find enough money to subsidize popular "victim" groups or big-time donors to their campaigns.

No, I'm talking about managing the projects that the vast majority of taxpayers would actually benefit from. Like building and maintaining bridges and roads. Or maybe there's a dangerous intersection in your community that's needed a traffic light for years. You know the drill -- you'll probably never see it until someone actually dies.

Take for instance the Interstate 35W bridge collapse in Minnesota a couple weeks ago. Politicians nationwide were falling all over themselves trying to see who could throw the most money at new safety inspections to prevent another catastrophe. Thanks, but no thanks.

Why, I wonder, was money not already allocated to these types of programs? Could it be that instead of using our tax dollars to fund a transportation bill that actually addressed transportation and infrastructure, congressional Democrats and Republicans were too busy stuffing the bill with billions and billions of dollars worth of earmarks for special interests instead?

According to the Washington Examiner, Congress is proposing a new 5-cents per gallon federal gas tax to pay for "spending increases of at least $250 million for safety inspections on the estimated 75,000 bridges rated 'structurally deficient.'" I'm hardly the best mathematician around, but you don't need to be to realize that this $250 million has already been paid for dozens of times over in unauthorized transportation bill earmarks alone. (And here I thought it was only the oil companies that were gouging us!)

But that's how things work in Washington when we're so indifferent to this waste and abuse. And guess what? It's never going to change until people like you and me demand that politicians actually use our tax dollars for our benefit instead of theirs. Until such demands are made, our intrepid representatives will simply continue to "solve" these problems by funding new programs with new taxes instead of money that has already been allocated for such use, but nevertheless spent immorally and improperly by politicians looking out for their own interests instead of ours.

None of this is to suggest that I actually endorse federal funding of transportation and infrastructure, by the way. I'm merely reacting to reality as it currently exists. If the federal government insists on spending our money to subsidize the states and to fund its own transportation spending programs, the least it could do is use our money for this and this alone. The arrogance that must be required for any politician to believe that our tax dollars should be used for his or her personal gain is staggering. One would think that even the most die-hard big-government apologist would have to admit at least this much.

Who's Your Daddy?

Who knows? At least when it comes to pork projects.

Barbara Hollingsworth chronicles congressional earmarks -- the illegitimate children of the federal government -- and has concluded that, despite her best efforts, it's virtually impossible to track the secretive little bastards or even to find out who fathered them.

War Pigs

Andy Roth points us to a great op-ed and graphic in the NYT today by Tom Schatz, who outlines all the pork that was attached to the "emergency" war spending bill.

EMERGENCY spending bills are called “Christmas trees,” for the unrelated “ornaments” that are added by members of Congress. (They are exempt from budget rules and are almost never vetoed, making them magnets for pork.) The nickname is usually not literal, but the Senate’s version of the fiscal 2007 supplemental appropriations bill that passed yesterday includes, among scores of other nonessential items, money for Christmas-tree growers.

As if wasting the taxpayers' money isn't bad enough, pork-addicted politicians should be despised for giving the majestic pig such a bad name.

You Can Run..

The DC Examiner expresses its displeasure today over Maryland politicians' general disinterest in responding to a survey asking if they support a bill to enable Maryland residents to track state spending online.

Some Maryland delegates we contacted candidly admitted they had never even heard of the transparency bill. But the vast majority didn’t bother to respond to our repeated phone calls and e-mails. One would think they’d welcome the chance to provide their constituents with the same level of transparency that’s now required of the federal government. But then few politicians in Annapolis have been known for being open and transparent about their money dealings.

Ho-hum. Another day in Maryland. The vast majority of the bums in Annapolis seem perfectly content to give us the finger as they continue to collect our money to implement laws that trample even more of our rights.

Dr. No on the Iraq War

Rep. Ron Paul says our leaders claim we're fighting in Iraq to preserve our freedoms at home, though the opposite is likely true.

More On That Iraq Emergency Funding Bill

David Weigel has all the juicy details of the pork-laden bill here.

Dave also wonders whether all the earmarks are a clever ploy to stop funding the war: "[S]tuff the bill with enough scrapple and voters will get sick of it even faster."

I wish we could be that optimistic. Without a doubt, there's just as much pork in that bill for Republicans as there is for Democrats. Not to mention, given how addicted so many Americans are today to these taxpayer-subsidized handouts, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the war was actually prolonged as an excuse to keep the pork coming.

Not that our "honorable" congressmen would ever grow a pair and say we should cut off war funding if that's what they actually thought, though.

Oink, Oink!

Jeepers, if I didn't know better I'd think the "war on terror" was just a vehicle with which to allow our congressmen to stuff campaign coffers through endless porkbarrel spending.

Show Me the Money

Mark Tapscott points us to FederalSpending.gov, a preliminary website set up by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Coburn-Obama, the bill passed last year to provide transparency in federal government spending.

While we're still in the early stages of increasing congressional accountability, Tapscott correctly notes that the success of such efforts is due primarily to the cooperation between those on both the left and right.

Now, bipartisan efforts are being waged to open even more of Congress to the sunshine via the Internet. Most notable here is the Sunlight Foundation’s OpenHouse Project, led by coordinators Matt Stover of MyDD blog, John Wonderlich of Daily Kos blog and Rob Bluey, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Media and Public Policy.

The OpenHouse Project is preparing a report for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that will contain numerous recommendations on how the Internet can be used to make Congress more transparent to taxpayers, including such measures as posting texts of bills and committee reports, making members daily schedules public and putting congressional office and management accounts online.

Only good can come of increasingly scrutinizing how our politicians spend our money.

For further reading, see my piece here on bringing such benefits to the state level, as well. Sadly, emails to my Maryland delegate, Minority Leader Tony O'Donnell, have gone unreturned to date.

Hoyer the Miser? Don't Make Me Laugh.

The Washington Times reports today that incoming House majority leader Steny Hoyer is one of the biggest recipients of special interest money, something that shouldn't be very suprising considering the Maryland congressman doles out more pork than a cook at a barbecue pit. What's funny is that he's apparently claiming with a straight face that he'll support lobbying reform.

"One of the first things we're going to do is adopt lobbying reform," Mr. Hoyer said. "We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night, and the public and other members can see what is being done."

Mr. Hoyer also said he would support further restrictions on lobbying and legislation aimed at curbing so-called "earmarks," which are expenditures anonymously attached to larger spending bills.

If anyone knows anything about earmarks, it's Steny Hoyer. How interesting that after all these years of handing out millions upon millions of federal tax dollars as an influential House appropriator, Hoyer now expects us to believe he'll take a stand against the very thing that allowed him so much leverage as a legislator.

Someone should ask Steny why he suddenly thinks lobbying and earmark reform is such a good idea now, after years of essentially buying votes at the expense of taxpayers across the country. Must be because he's a man of principle.

What's in a Name?

There is just no denying that America is in the throes of one-party "Republicrat" government. The terms "Democrat" and "Republican" are essentially meaningless anymore, because both parties are committed to confiscating our income and using it to expand government. Beautiful.

It's time for another tea party, folks.

I Wish I Were Dreaming

Good editorial today in the Washington Examiner confirming that a Senate-House conference committee -- chaired by Republicans, mind you -- stripped a provision from a Department of Defense spending bill that would require public disclosure of all earmarks and the names of their sponsors. Apparently, it's pretty easy to get away with these types of shenanigans as long as you wait to pull them a couple hours before everyone in Congress gets to go home and campaign for their job.

It is simply amazing that these conferees, all veteran members of Congress, would be so politically tone-deaf to let the Coburn report card be yanked by the conference session. Surely they remember that one now-former member of Congress sits in a federal penitentiary for accepting bribes in return for earmarks via DOD spending. And have they not seen the growing barrage of negative coverage in recent years as Pentagon earmarks have spiraled from 587 worth $4.2 billion in 1994 to 2,847 worth nearly $9.5 billion this year?

This is nice timing. I may have been a little groggy while I was waking up this morning, but I swear I heard the DJ on 97.7 (the best rock station on the planet, by the way) here in good ol' Southern Maryland say that Congress clandestinely stuck a $20 million earmark into a recent DoD bill to fund a party celebrating success in Iraq (!).

That is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start.

Cut Taxes AND Spending

Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, testified today before Congress on the state of the economy and budget in the U.S.

Edwards stated that U.S. economy is in the midst of an economic expansion, thanks to "the activities of America's entrepreneurs, continued advances in technology, and the dynamism of global markets" that "are the main drivers of U.S. economic growth and job creation."

However, Edwards simultaneously noted that large increases in federal spending over the past several years is going to take a huge toll on the economy.

Have tax cuts or spending increases caused today's large budget deficits? Federal outlays have increased from $1.9 trillion in fiscal 2001 to $2.7 trillion by fiscal 2006, an increase of $800 billion. By contrast, the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 have reduced federal revenues by roughly $200 billion this year.19 Thus, recent spending increases are four times more important in explaining the current budget deficit than are recent tax cuts.20

Almost as a rule, critics of tax cuts point to federal revenue lost to specific cuts as the primary cause of budget deficits, and not to the huge outlay of federal funds that bankroll earmarks and entitlement projects. Indeed, states realized record tax revenue in 2005, not because they cut spending, but because federal tax cuts prompted more business investment and consumer spending that was, in turn, exposed to a wide array of state taxes.

Supply-siders have understood for years that lowering taxes spurs economic activity and actually accounts for increased tax revenue rather than less. However, the benefits of tax cuts are all too often perversely corrupted, as politicians incapable of self-restraint invariably engage in more and more spending as more and more revenue rolls in (of course, politicians rarely consider returning surplus tax revenue to the taxpayers).

Interestingly, Edwards notes that we still have a ways to go in cutting the top income tax rate:

Recent supply-side tax changes have also included individual rate cuts. Cutting the top income tax rate from 40 to 35 percent was particularly good policy because the top end is where the largest efficiency gains can be achieved.14 Those in the top brackets have the most flexibility in adjusting their taxable income, and their actions create substantial impacts on the economy.15 People with high incomes often have unique talents as executives, surgeons, entrepreneurs, and other high-value occupations. About three-quarters of the top 1 percent of federal taxpayers report small business income.16 Numerous studies have found that marginal tax rate changes have substantial effects on small business hiring and investment.17 Note that the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top marginal rate to just 28 percent. Thus, recent tax cuts have moved in the right direction, but have not fully reversed the rate increases passed in 1990 and 1993.

Though Edwards is probably well aware his advice will go unheeded, he nevertheless closes by saying that in order to "extend the recent tax cuts and ensure continued strong economic growth, policymakers need to scour the budget for programs and agencies to cut."

Fat, happy chance of that. But given how much the federal government hypes everyone else's obesity, it might be appropriate for it to go on a little diet of its own.

Bush Rewards a Bloggin' Floggin'

Via the Washington Times:

President Bush has invited bloggers to join him today as he signs into law a bill creating a database of federal spending -- a recognition of their role in forcing the bill through Congress over the objections of senior senators and an indication of how much bloggers are changing the political process.

A coalition of bloggers from the left and the right last month did what the Senate's Republican leadership could not: smoke out obstructing senators, bring public pressure to break their hold and move the bill to the Senate floor, where it passed by a voice vote.

This is a huge victory for anyone who values open government (which should be everyone) and for the American people in general, who should make a point of noting that, while oftentimes arduous and infuriating, it's still possible to influence the political process from the grassiest of grassroots. Even the most prominent bloggers wield only so much influence alone; it is the power of the Internet that allows them to collect the masses, who are then able to combine their voluminous peeps into a voice so loud as to essentially be heard on the Senate floor.

This is not a left or right issue. This is a freedom issue. The Coburn-Obama transparency bill is one of the most important Bush could sign, and we should all view this as an invitation to rejoice in such empowerment by using technology to further improve government transparency and accountability.

Tim Chapman has more.

Earmark Reform Bill Was a Landmark Victory

The Denver Rocky Mountain News is less than enthusiastic over House passage of the Coburn-Obama transparency bill last week (roll call here), a bill that will require the Office of Management and Budget to establish a Google-like website providing information on the sponsorship of congressional earmarks.

While the editors acknowledge that earmarks (pork) "undermine accountability and encourage parochial interests to seek favors from specific lawmakers," they are nonetheless discouraged by the fact that the bill allows exceptions.

Unfortunately, lawmakers failed to fully unmask earmarks before they become law. H.R. 1000, which takes effect immediately, requires sponsors to disclose some earmarks after bills pass committee and are presented for a vote in the full House.

That's progress, we suppose. But the measure includes chasm-sized loopholes. Earmarks that go to federal agencies will remain secret. So will tax breaks that benefit more than one business or agency.

Thousands of these narrow favors will stay in the shadows, which suggests that "reform" has one meaning inside the Beltway and another everywhere else.

This concern is misplaced. The Coburn-Obama bill is landmark legislation not only because politicians will now be held more accountable when it comes to doling out our money to special interests, but it also demonstrates the power that the Internet affords regular citizens. This bill was driven almost exclusively by everyday bloggers and activist groups, organized through a medium that by its very nature allows citizens to interact with one another on a real time basis.

Change does not occur overnight. Going after every single form of government spending all at once probably would have resulted in a bill too broad and inefficient to pass. While critics like the Rocky Mountain News editors worry that this transparency bill only addresses "a little more than 1 percent of total spending" (accounting for roughly $29 billion of the current budget), its value is virtually immeasurable: Crafty politicians who have made a living cunningly sneaking pork into appropriations bills to ensure their own vitality now know they will be watched and monitored constantly.

More than simply saving the taxpayers money, the earmark reform bill passed last week will begin to change behaviors in Washington. It will be harder for politicians to get away with handing out the taxpayers' money and simultaneously bragging about how fiscally responsible they are. And don't worry, there's still plenty of time to go after spending currently protected by loopholes. After all, the Internet isn't going anywhere. And thanks to the earmark reform bill, it's now coming to the OMB.

In Defense of Secret Holds

Good stuff from Tim Chapman explaining how the secret hold is a beneficial tool used to prevent bad legislation from passing, despite the fact that it's now being used (and abused) to stall S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act.

[HT: Andy Roth]

UPDATE: Tim confirms via TPMmuckraker that Ted Stevens (RINO-AK) is the senator holding the spending transparency bill.

UPDATE II: Mark Tapscott informs us that Ted Stevens wants to see -- are you ready for this? -- a "cost-benefit" analysis of providing taxpayers with information on how Congress spends their money.

Here's the money quote from Mark: "If that obvious BS doesn't get Stevens hooted out the U.S. Senate .... How about we do a cost-benefit analysis of Stevens' tenure in the nation's capitol?"

I think Mark means "booted" out of the Senate, but whether laughed or kicked out, it's time for Stevens to go.

Taxpayer Rip-Off of the Week

Stephen Laffey, mayor of Cranston, R.I. and Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, writes that the Stanley Theatre in Utica, N.Y. received $250,000 of good old American pork from the 2006 Interior Appropriations Act. His opponent in the Rhode Island primary is raging RINO Sen. Lincoln Chaffey, who voted in favor of spending tax money on the Stanley Theatre (Senate Roll Call Vote #210).

What's worse, explains Laffey, is that the theatre thrives just fine all on its own.

Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are

The Examiner asks in an editorial today who the senator is who wants spending kept secret, as a result of an anonymous hold placed on S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, legislation that would create a website providing information related to all recipients of federal funding.

The problem here, of course, is that federal spending transparency is anathema for too many Democrats and Republicans in government. They think members of the public ought to keep their noses out of how their tax dollars are being spent by the Potomac potentates at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and all the departments and agencies in between. The attitude was epitomized by former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott’s statement that he was “damn tired” of the “so-called porkbusters” because “they’ve been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina.” Those words sound like something you’d expect from a prime suspect in the present mystery, do they not?

The editorial nails it. Because pork-barrel spending (i.e., earmarks attached to appropriations bills with no oversight, accountability, or congressional up or down vote) is the incumbent's lifeline to the constituency, there are few politicians -- Democrat and Republican alike -- who are willing to put their name on the line when it comes to doling out your hard-earned money. Check out the Porkbusters website for an eclectic collage of senators who refuse to deny having placed a secret hold on this bill.

So far, only 13 senators have assured the public that they have not held up the proceedings on the Coburn-Obama bill. These senators are:

Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Barack Obama (D-Ill.) (Sponsor of bill)
Mary Landrieu (D-Lou.)
David Vitter (R-Lou.)
James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) (Sponsor of bill)
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
John Cornyn (R-Tex.)
Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.)

You'd think we've been asking these senators how they'd actually vote on this bill. The fact that 87 of them can't even assure us they're not engaging in shenanigans to stall a vote is atrocious. Whatever you think of the overall politics of the aforementioned 13 who've denied playing games with S. 2590, we can at least take comfort in the idea that they might just realize they actually work for the citizens and not the other way around.

Getting a Jump On Pork

Randy May, my colleague at The Free State Foundation, points us to an Examiner newspaper piece today highlighting state-by-state earmarks for 2007. I guess it's never too early for Congress to tack earmarks onto appropriations bills.

Here's a breakdown of the earmarks for Maryland, which come to a grand total of $8,250,000 -- all of it provided by the taxpayer and sponsored by congressmen who fail to put their mouths where our money is. The Examiner encourages all concerned citizens to contact their representative and ask him what he intends to do with our money. I might be taking a shot in the dark here, but this has Steny Hoyer written all over it.

The Club for Growth has more here. And you can go here to get a full list of members who sit on the Committee on Appropriations.

Steny Hoyer: Fiscal Accountability Flake

My buddy Andy Roth, who runs The Club for Growth blog, has started one of the most important campaigns in the blogosphere: Blogs Against Pork. He's gathering dozens of bloggers around the country who are committed to tracking their congressman's record on pork-barrel spending; or, more specifically, how their district's House rep voted on Congressman Jeff Flake's 19 anti-pork amendments -- initiatives that forced every House member to record his or her position on earmarks. Andy has also compiled a scorecard of how every member voted on the Flake amendments, a handy quick-reference guide for anyone interested in determining their congressman's stance on wasteful spending.

As a resident of Maryland's 5th Congressional District, I have the pleasure of drawing Rep. Steny Hoyer, one of the most notorious tax-and-spend Democrats in Congress. On the one hand, it's fun to excoriate big-spending liberals. But on the other, I have to live with the fact that my congressman pisses away more money than John Daly on a bad night in Vegas. The big difference, of course, is that Daly spends his own money.

Hoyer, who has almost never voted in favor of pro-growth measures in Congress, unsurprisingly voted "NO" on every single Flake amendment -- a "perfect" 0 for 19 -- indicating his affirmation of these pork-stuffed bills. According to Porkbusters, this means that Steny Hoyer APPROVES of the $34,759,000 of your hard-earned money spent with no oversight, no debate, no committee up or down vote, no rules whatsoever.

I suppose these votes wouldn't be so hard to stomach if Hoyer didn't actually pretend to care about the taxpayer. Indeed, according to his campaign biography: "[Hoyer] is a strong proponent in Congress for fiscal responsibility because he believes that we should not force our children and grandchildren to pay this generation's bills."

This is an odd claim for a congressman who received a whopping score of 9 (out of 100) last year from Citizens Against Government Waste; for a congressman who as House appropriator has attached millions upon millions in federal pork over the years to various appropriations bills in order to bankroll local projects; for a congressman whose very website boasts of Hoyer's status on the "powerful Appropriations Committee" as responsible for his ability to "[secure] millions of federal dollars to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and the Patuxent, Potomac, Anacostia, and St. Mary's Rivers, and to replenish the oyster population of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries."

Wow, that sure is a good way to avoid shackling our future taxpayers with debt! But then, when you have the nation's checkbook at your disposal it probably isn't too hard to buy off gullible voters and lie about your so-called "fiscal responsibility."