EDITORIAL: Smells like a pig - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Mar. 12, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Smells like a pig

Democrats push pork-laden spending through Congress

"We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review."

-- Barack Obama, Jan. 6, 2009.

Most Popular Stories

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name

EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

Our politicians are the greatest, all right

EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...

EDITORIAL: They took our jobs!

Perhaps President Obama is the leader of some political party other than that of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Hawthorne, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Barbary Coast.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and other opponents of the corrupt process of attaching earmarks to often unrelated spending bills, have been attacking the more than 8,000 pet projects stuffed into the president's $410 billion spending plan. But some big spenders are actually fighting back.

For example, allocating $1.8 million to study methods of controlling the smell of pig dung stinks to high heaven in these times of economic struggle, Sen. Coburn insists. "Pigs stink. We know why," said Sen. Coburn on the Senate floor last week. "So is that a priority right now?" But Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, defended the pet project that he himself had larded into the massive spending bill, without subjecting it to the normal hearing process: "In farm country, manure and odor management are profoundly serious challenges that can be mitigated through scientific research," Sen. Harkin squealed.

Senate Majority Leader Reid came up with his own justification for earmarks: "I have an obligation to the people of Nevada to make sure there is not some bureaucrat down in one of these big offices in Washington, D.C., who determines every penny spent in Nevada," he explained.

The best way to do that, of course, would be to ensure fewer Nevada dollars flow to Washington in the form of federal tax collections in the first place, allowing them to instead be retained and spent right here, without any Beltway bureaucratic oversight whatever.

But Sen. Feinstein of San Francisco may have been the most candid in admitting what the world's most supposedly sober deliberative body is actually up to, these days.

On Monday, after Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., lambasted the spending bill and its earmarks, Appropriations Committee member Sen. Feinstein gave an impassioned defense of the practice. "Yes, I fight for funds for my state," she said. "That's what I came here to do. Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can't help your state?"

Actually, less than two months ago, Sen. Feinstein provided her own answer when she and her cohorts once again cynically took their oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," a document which instructs the senators they are there to exercise a certain limited set of powers for the specific purpose of "providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" -- not "the specific welfare of the state from which they shall have come."

The Constitution most certainly does not authorize the expenditure of limited federal tax dollars for research into the causes of Iowa pig stink. Or does Sen. Feinstein believe the people of California should provide her with a kerchief and an eye patch, a cutlass and a pistol, the better to fight the other 99 pirates there for her fair share of their ill-gotten booty?

Why does the federal government currently run a deficit massive enough to distort the credit markets, carrying a mind-boggling load of debt which -- barring default -- our children and grandchildren will be sold into virtual slavery to pay off?

Federal spending could be trimmed by more than half, overnight, if our delegates to Washington merely began asking, of each proposed allocation, "Where, in those 390 words of Article I, Section 8, which list all the things on which we're authorized to spend money, does this one appear?"

And let's have none of the old "general welfare" chestnut. As George Mason University economics professor and syndicated columnist Walter Williams again laboriously pointed out this week: "In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, 'If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.' "

Pig stink research? It's perfectly legal. It may even be worthwhile. But as it has nothing to do with coining money, establishing post offices, granting patents, punishing piracy or floating a navy, Congress has no authority to fund it. Period.

In cheerful, blatant and fiscally disastrous defiance of which, the Senate on Tuesday evening voted 62-35 to end debate and send their latest, humongous, $410 billion pork-filled spending bill (with its 8,570 separate earmarks) to the White House, where President Obama -- the sworn enemy of all earmarks, it should be recalled -- happily signed it, but vowed to put an end to this insidious practice ... next time.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	48 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.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. dennis1944 wrote on March 18, 2009 11:34 AM: Just like 600 or so kids turned loose in a toy store with an unlimited government guaranteed credit card. How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving. tucanofulano wrote on March 13, 2009 09:59 AM: Anyone notice the bill was encolsed in pigskin as if a bookcover? Joe C wrote on March 13, 2009 06:54 AM: To Greg, Thanks, but I’m sure you could elaborate on your thinking, oh wait, I wouldn’t get it. Most likely you have nothing but names the result of ignorance. Or just an idiot, which explains the drooling. Hugh Jass wrote on March 13, 2009 06:05 AM: This is what happens when you elect a Democrat majority in an election. And yes the children of those who voted for this idiot president will pay about 55%-60% in taxes when they enter the workforce. Thanks to all of you fools that fell for Barracks lying promises. It shows that the majority of Americans are as stupid as the Democrats having been saying for decades. When this fool Barrack runs again the same dumbass's will vote for him again because all he has to say is "It's Bush's fault". Keep drinking idiots from the cesspool of Democratic rule. Paul O'Brien wrote on March 13, 2009 05:49 AM: It's too bad that our elected leaders do not have to personally pay for their waste and disregard for the people they supposedly represent. I hope that the new president will see the value in restoring fiscal discipline into our future budgets. Greg wrote on March 13, 2009 04:50 AM: Joe C You are a moron. Joe C wrote on March 12, 2009 06:20 PM: Thanks for your input patrick but I didn’t vote for Bush and I’m not a Bush fan of his administration. Like Obama isn’t a twin of Bush, pro-free trade, big government spending, etc, same BS just a different package. He’s collapsed on every one of his promises but stem cell and I have mixed feeling on that. What happened to jobs for Americans, oh yea, now NAFTA is great, except that two country’s people feel it failed them, that would be the U.S. and Mexico. Porkov wrote on March 12, 2009 06:15 PM: I am sick and tired of all the slurs against pigs. Earmarking is a barbarous and painful practice. Sure, pigs are omnivores, but golly, in a pinch PETA can stand in for the ACLU in defense of pigs. Let us know pigs for what they are, not for their byproducts. Charlotte gave her all for Wilbur, who was worth it and so much more than the sum of his edible parts. Brittanicus wrote on March 12, 2009 05:35 PM: See the financial picture of Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi at OPENSECRETS. Without the successful e-Verify programl running illegal aliens will continue to appropriate jobs, that should go to the 6 million plus unemployed. Americans and legal residents their jobs and homes in dire straights. The United Stated cannot continue to educate, give free health insurance and a wide spectrum of social benefits, that is costing the taxpayer hundreds of billions a year. The ominous US Chamber of Commerce and special interest lobbyists are the main cause of overpopulation, traffic chaos, pollution and the devastating effect of farmland turned into concrete for housing. The American worker is in a crisis situation, but Democrats to appease special interest organizations, have sold their loyalty for corporate campaign contributions. We must--NOT--stop the bombardment of the Washington Switchboard 202-224-3121 for senator or Representative demanding E-Verify for ten years--if not --PERPETUITY?. President Obama switchboard (202) 456-1414 Comments (202) 456-1111 Brittanicus wrote on March 12, 2009 05:32 PM: Blocking E-Verify was deliberate decision of the Senate leaders who place the interests of 40 million illegal aliens (According to Heritage Foundation), over the interests of millions of unemployed American workers. It would Extend the federal program to screen workers and job applicants to determine whether they reside in the United States legally. All Republican senators present in the chamber voted against tabling the measure to extend the life of the program. Nearly every Democratic senator, including, Leahy (D-VT) voted in favor of tabling it in a 50 to 47 motion. U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., offered the re-authorization amendment to the omnibus spending bill, including an amendment to the Stimulus bill. His legislation would have allowed the program going for another six years. Chances are it will still run until September according to the Sen. Sessions. The main culprits involved to killing of E-verify was Sen.Harry Reid Read All Comments