Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion
Mar. 20, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Obama, Clinton oppose earmarks (wink, wink)

So why won't they promise to veto all pork as president?

The "practice of inserting 'earmarked' spending into legislation is seen by lawmakers in both parties as a birthright power of the purse awarded to Congress by the Founding Fathers," The Associated Press reported March 13 in its coverage of the failure of a one-year earmark moratorium in the Senate.

It's not enough merely to say that position is wrong. To point out how far out of touch our elected "statesmen" have fallen from any normal or decent code of ethics, imagine the assertion were instead that those charged with packaging up foodstuffs for our sailors "consider it a birthright power to sell off part of the food for personal profit on the black market, replacing it with sawdust or stuff too rotten to eat because it won't be discovered till the ships are far at sea anyway," or that those assigned to operate orphanages "consider it a birthright power to sell their young charges into prostitution or slavery."

Both have happened -- so frequently that they were indeed considered routine, at one point in world history. But the fact that they came to be expected never made them right.

The Constitution makes it clear that the Congress may allocate public moneys only to advance the "general" welfare. Spending $200 million from the national treasury to build a bridge to an island with 50 inhabitants in far western Alaska does the typical taxpayer of Alabama or Arkansas no "general" good. Neither does an "earmark" to buy a bird-counting computer for UNLV -- stuffed by Nevada Sen. Harry Reid as an earmark plum into the spending allocation of the Department of Energy, not generally charged with counting birds, anywhere.

Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: It's now illegal to carry cash?
  • J.C. WATTS: Social conservatives still a political force
  • JOHN BRUMMETT: It's the worst of all worlds for the DemocratsCommentary
  • EDITORIAL: Billing Mrs. Fossett
  • EDITORIAL: Just 'trust our incumbent senators'
  • LETTERS: Tipping 'expert' a total cheapskate
  • ERIN NEFF: They just figured it was a lingerie supplier
  • LETTERS: To boost revenue, repeal smoking law
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'If only we were armed before'
  • LETTERS: Inquest results in another whitewash



    • And it certainly cannot be justified as a better use for 21 percent of workers' salaries (much more, once we realize that Social Security withholding also goes into the general fund) than allowing them to keep the money to invest or to clothe themselves and their families.

    In a hollow political gesture -- because few new spending bills are likely to be enacted in an election year, anyway -- a few Senate Republicans endeavored last week to enact a one-year moratorium on such pork spending. In the end, Arizona's John McCain, the apparent GOP nominee for president, could attract only 25 fellow Republicans to embrace the symbolic hiatus in the ongoing larceny. Three lonely Democrats joined the reformers as their bid failed, 71-29.

    Safe in the knowledge the measure was going to crash and burn anyway, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- both of whom cheerfully toot the whistle for whole trainloads of porkfat dispatched to their home states annually -- were among the three Democrats voting for a temporary halt to the massive misappropriations.

    Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., voted for the moratorium. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on the other hand, voted to keep on looting the public treasury like there's no tomorrow.

    How do Democrats hope to fund their huge spendfest? (They seek "generous increases to domestic programs," as well, The AP reports.) Why, the $3 trillion House Democratic budget plan blithely pencils in the largest tax hikes in history.

    Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., voted for that plan, which would reverse all of President Bush's tax cuts. Republican Reps. Jon Porter and Dean Heller of Nevada were opposed.

    So, shall Sens. Clinton and Obama now be allowed to contend they're "just as opposed to that terrible earmark pork as John McCain (wink wink, nudge nudge)"?

    Not quite. Sen. McCain has vowed that, if elected president, he would veto any spending bill containing such earmarks.

    If Sens. Clinton and Obama share an equal devotion to accountability, frugality and constitutional rectitude, let them similarly vow to veto any such spending bill to come before them.

    And let them make it clear, while they're at it, that they refer to "The kind of spending personally requested by lawmakers for their own states, districts, and campaign donors -- outside the normal process of hearing and review -- now referred to as 'earmarks,' even if by next year they've come up with a new name for it."

    Links powered by inform.com


    Leave Your Comment 11 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    addie wrote on March 21, 2008 08:11 PM: Clinton has put forward more earmarks then Obama and McCain put together. I also think,because of 9-11 NY might need more money.But earmarks are under the table. The USA gives millions to the war everyday. Clinton shouldn't have a problem asking for money in the open for 9-11 related items.


    fumiste wrote on March 21, 2008 05:57 AM: In Clinton's case you have to take into account the special needs of post-911 New York, including support for the WTC heroes and their families. Not all pork is Spam.


    Lee wrote on March 20, 2008 08:33 PM: During the two year tenure of Obama in the senate, he had so many earmarks including $millions to a hospital where Obama's wife works even if the hospital did not request for it. Obama made other earmarks where he has been getting donations as payback. For Obama to oppose earmark in his rhetoric in presidential campaign is hypocrisy. Promise is one but doing action is another. Trust matters in this country.


    GaDemocrat wrote on March 20, 2008 08:07 PM: I would interpret support of the war and all the contractors that have earned millions because of it as support of earmarks. If Senator McCain is supporting the war, he has supported the use of millions and millions of taxpayer dollars being used to support contractors awarded lucrative deals without even bidding. WINK! WINK!


    Ferenc Hutterer wrote on March 20, 2008 06:01 PM: "PORK" is less than 1% of the budget. If McCain really wants to save money, cut the 10 billion monthly expenses, for which neither us, nor the Iraqies got NOTHING!


    James wrote on March 20, 2008 02:59 PM: Earmarks, schmermarks.

    It's hard to get all worked up and righteous about the pennies spent on so-called earmarks here at home when hundred dollar bills are used like toilet paper in Iraq.

    Get real. Bush has made a farce of fiscal responsibility when he, the Decider, decided to invade and occupy a foreign country.

    We should start printing three dollar bills with GWB's picture on it, a three dollar bill that's worth only a dollar.


    Peter Cantrell wrote on March 20, 2008 10:28 AM: "Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., voted for the moratorium." Yet, in FY 2008 he sponsored or co-sponsored some $435,000,000 in earmarks!, then voted against the appropriation bill that paid for the pork.

    Ensign; Hypocrite yesterday, hypocrite today, hypocrite tomorrow!

    Actions speak louder than words.


    John F wrote on March 20, 2008 09:04 AM: Actually, Vic, you're off base here. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, pork barrel spending last year amounted to $13.2 billion, down from $29 billion in 2006. Since the Democrats took over Congress - and Reid took over as majority leader - at the start of the 2007 legislative session, I think we need to give Harry Reid and his cohorts a great deal, but not all, of the credit for reining in pork barrel spending.

    But the bigger issue is that pork barrel spending is going to be about the same this year as last, while the overall budget deficit this year is expected to be somewhere in the $450 billion range. We could cut out every last cent of pork and it would still leave us over $425 billion in the hole.

    The biggest earmark spenders are not in the legislative branch, anyway; they're in the executive. Their earmarks don't go to localities, however, they go to corporations. Just look at the huge number of no-bid contracts that have gone out to friends of the Bush Administration (like Halliburton and Blackwater) and ask yourselves if this represents a wise use of our tax dollars.


    Lawrence Hyde wrote on March 20, 2008 07:40 AM: I live in Wells and I doubt if there is anyone that could honestly say they would welcome earmarks from reid, except the people that own the old buildings on front street, and those bulildings should have been torn down a long time ago.


    bobby luker wrote on March 20, 2008 05:48 AM: You're right Vic. and you can bet that "bird counting" computer Harry Reid had in mind, will actually count a little something in Harry Reids pocket. "Bird Counter?". Are we going to sit around and let him insult our intellegence this bad while he stuffs his pockets? I really feel enough people now have seen him for what he is, and send him packing next election.


    Read All Comments