BCT Editorial – 3/11/08

This page was last updated on March 11, 2008.

Earmark hypocrites; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 11, 2008.

This editorial subtitle is “Republicans would have more credibility on pork projects if they did what they said.”

Actually, this part of the editorial is correct. Republicans, who at least sometimes claim to support fiscal responsibility, feed at the pig trough every bit as much as Democrats. From here on out, though, the editorial runs off the tracks.

Let’s look at one paragraph.

“On top of that, Democrats haven’t been as profligate as the GOP since they regained control of Congress in 2007. First, they imposed a one-year earmark ban as they finished up leftover spending bills. Later, they imposed new earmark disclosure rules and made cutbacks when passing the appropriations bills for the current year. Democrats claim to have cut earmarks by 43 percent.”

On the “Democrats haven’t been as profligate as the GOP” comment, the Democrat response to President Bush’s last budget was to propose at least an additional $270 billion in spending.

Saying that House Democrats imposed new earmark rules is correct. The rules, approved only for the 110^th Congress, were initially passed on purely party lines. It’s hard to believe all Democrats oppose pork-barrel spending and all Republicans support it, so I’m guessing there had to be some purely political reason for the 100% party line split. I’d love to hear the explanation. In any case, when the Senate’s earmark reform bill came up for a vote later in the year, it was overwhelmingly approved by members of both parties and signed into law by President Bush.

The “one-year earmark ban” and the subsequent rule changes didn’t appear to be very effective. For example, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) received the CAGW’s “Porker of the Year” award for 2007. According to the CAGW, “In fiscal year 2008, he [Mr. Murtha] brought home 72 pork projects worth $149.2 million.”

“Democrats claim to have cut earmarks by 43 percent?” I don’t know if this is true or not, but did the Times try to verify the claim?

Finally, the editorial says, “Critics are right. Pork-barrel spending does need to be brought under control?” Despite all we read in the editorial up to this point, the Times still doesn’t get it. Pork-barrel spending doesn’t “need to be brought under control,” it needs to be eliminated, period.