Do We Need A 'Pork' Amendment?

[Annie]

http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2005/11/pork-and-principles-fly-as-congress.html

Sunday, November 20, 2005
Pork and Principles Fly As Congress Appropriates, Dances The D.C. Two-Step on Spending


Pork and principles take wing whenever the mainstream media’s beloved “mainstream” Members of Congress - liberal Democrats and their moderate Republican first cousins – start dancing around an appropriation bill.

The pork heads to the Members’ districts in the form of costly "earmarks" that send bundles of government greenbacks to pay for things like that $223 million "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. The principles fly out the window.

If you doubt me on this, take a look at what happened in the U.S. House of Representatives this past Thursday when the 2006 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriation bill came up for a vote.

It was beginning to look like Congress was getting the message about too much pork barrel spending because the night before congressional negotiators representing the House and the Senate agreed on a $142 billion Labor-HHS-Education spending bill with no earmarks.

No bridges to nowhere. No rain forests for Iowa. No federal grants to build a music conservatory in wealthy Westchester County, New York. A pork-free bill sounds like a great idea, right? Some senators and congressmen were upset that they didn't get their pet projects funded but it's time they learn to sacrifice a little like tax payers out in the real world, right?

Anyway, things looked great until the House brought the conference report on the bill to the floor for a vote. There were 209 votes for the conference report, every one of them cast by a Republican.

But there were 224 votes against the conference report, including 201 Democrats, 22 moderate GOPers and Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Socialist who calls himself an Independent. The no-pork bill went down to defeat, as Democrats and their favorite Republicans - aka "Republicans-in-Name-Only" - woo-hooed it up on the House floor.

So where do we see the D.C. Two-Step in that vote? Take, for example, Rep. Michael Castle, the Delaware Republican who voted with the Democrats. His official web site lists one of his priorities as "deficit reduction." Wouldn’t a no-pork appropriations bill be a step in the direction of deficit reduction?

That’s the D.C. Two-Step - You promise constituents you will vote to limit wasteful federal spending, but then when you get an obvious chance to do so, you go the other way.
It’s an easy dance because no Washington journalist is going to ask you a tough question like "Congressman, why do you talk one way but vote the other way?" And most constituents have short memories come election day.

Castle was far from alone Thursday. Go to Rep. Nancy Johnson’s web site and you find that the Connecticut Republican "has worked successfully to cut taxes for Connecticut families and level the economic playing field so small businesses and manufacturers can compete in the global economy and create good jobs."

Again, the media isn't likely to ask tough questions like how does voting with Democrats against a pork-free appropriations bill help small businesses, manufacturers or families, so Johnson dances back to Congress on election day.

Then there is Rep. Mark Kirk, R-IL, another one of those 22 GOPers voting with the Democrats. Kirk’s web site notes that he "is co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, the caucus of mainstream Republican Members of Congress. In that capacity, Mr. Kirk works to advance a suburban agenda that is pro-defense, pro-personal responsibility, pro-environment, and pro-science."

By the way, "mainstream" and "moderate" are the media’s code word for "not conservative" or "liberal."

So don’t hold your breath waiting for an Illinois journalist to ask Kirk to explain exactly how science, defense, the environment or the suburbs benefit by his helping Democrats kill a pork-free appropriations bill that could have set a healthy new precedent and freed up billions of dollars that would have otherwise gone down some pork barrel rat hole.

Kirk gets to keep right on dancing the ole D.C. Two-Step.

RINOs like Castle, Johnson and Kirk can get away year after year doing the D.C. Two-Step because the congressional campaign system has become something more accurately described as the "Incumbent Protection System."

Remember the Contract with America back in 1994? It included term limits as the best way to insure a continuous flow into Congress of new blood, fresh thinking and recent experience in the real world. But the federal courts said terms limits are unconstitutional.

It's time for a constitutional amendment.

Personally I'll have to check this out. All my knowledge has Mark Kirk pretty good on issues, it may be with the 'bill' but in any case, I thought I'd throw it out.