Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Small Pigs Can Still Be Dangerous
A little earlier today I watched Citizens Against Government Waste
unveil its 2007
Pig Book. These press conferences are usually sessions of
therapy and Congress-bashing and despair, which made it surprising
when CAGW President Tom Schatz presented two charts that showed
Congress's pork spending rate plunging.
"The Congressional Pig Book this year is the smallest it's been since 1999," Schatz said. "And the reason for that is standing right next to me here, Sen. Jim DeMint." DeMint, Sen. John McCain and Rep. Jeff Flake were on hand to bask in the glow of a cleaned-up appropriations process and, eventually, admit that the GOP blew it by not taking charge of this sooner.
"I don't think that the Republican Party lost the election because
of the war in Iraq," said a depleted-sounding McCain. "I think the
Republican Party lost because of our failure to control spending
and earmarking, which then led to corruption, which then led to
members of Congress going to jail." In particular, McCain begrudged
his peers for larding up Defense appropriations bills. He had a
little faint praise for the Bush administration: "I'm pleased at
the president's attitude, even if I don't understand the promise to
'cut earmarks in half.' I don't know how you determine that. That's
like saying we're going to 'put half of all drug dealers in jail.'"
(Behind-the-curtain moment: An ABC reporter used the Q and A to
pivot and ask McCain about Barack Obama's investment history.
That's where
this story came from.)
Flake and DeMint agreed that the GOP had lost its way on spending and that the Democrats had actually done a decent job in the House of reforming the process - although DeMint took credit (correctly) for pushing that House version through Harry Reid's Senate. "I may be overly optimistic, but I think report language earmarks are dead," said DeMint. Rep. Flake was the most hard-headed of the bunch: "There's been a drop-off, but the notion that you have 2000 earmarks in a Defense appropriations bill is still absurd, he said. "I challenged a few eamarks in the floor, some of them in Defense appropriations, and no one came forward to say they put them in the bill." Flake also promised to introduce a resolution, already written, to investigate claims of pressure to pork up bills if reports of this filter through the House.
You can get the pig book here. I interviewed Rep. Flake briefly after the presser; if the Reason podcast feature magically starts working, I'll upload it the very next second.
|3.7.07 @ 3:43PM|#
So let me get this straight: the new rules that the new majority passed clean up the pork, and the three people CAGW singles out for praise are from the minority that failed to pass these rules for six years?
|3.7.07 @ 3:45PM|#
"that failed to pass these rules for six years?"
Six years, twelve years; whatever.
|3.7.07 @ 3:48PM|#
joe,
Flake is actually a good guy here. He has been all over earmarks
since he was first elected. He gave Delay crap when he said that
all the fat had been cut out of the budget during the Rep's
control. etc.
|3.7.07 @ 3:48PM|#
joe,
When was the 2007 budget passed? I'm quite sure it was before the
election. Nice try, though.
|3.7.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Yay! They're stealing less money! They're stealing less
money!
...
What?
...
The tax laws haven't changed at all? So they're still stealing the
same amount?
...
So what doe this mean? They're just going to spend less of what
they take?
...
Oh you mean they're going to continue to spend more than they take,
but at a lower rate?
...
And they're exited about this?
...
No, no, I understand, I get excited when my toddler goes potty in
the toilet, but you don't hear me calling press conferences about
it.
|3.7.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Ah, my bad. The language about the earmark bill in the fourth paragraph confused me.
|3.7.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Clicked through to the CAGW Pig Book Summary. Gack! Anyone who is presenting complex data to a non-expert audience needs to read some Edward Tufte, godammit!
stephen the goldberger|3.7.07 @ 3:59PM|#
with this and the romney dolphin, who knew the furry population was becoming so politcally active?
|3.7.07 @ 4:01PM|#
I don't think that the Republican Party lost the election
because of the war in Iraq," said a depleted-sounding McCain. "I
think the Republican Party lost because of our failure to control
spending and earmarking, which then led to corruption, which then
led to members of Congress going to jail.
Bingo. And Dems who fail to learn this lesson will find their
majority similarly short-lived.
|3.7.07 @ 4:06PM|#
"I don't think that the Republican Party lost the election
because of the war in Iraq, [just]larding up Defense appropriations
bills."
Defense. War. What's the diff?
|3.7.07 @ 4:09PM|#
McCain is engaged in some wishful thinking if he doesn't believe
Iraq helped the Democrats win in November, but the second half of
that quote is very insightful.
I expected to read "...because of our failure to control spending
and earmarking, which turned off the conservative majority of
Americans, who want us to be even more conservative."
But he went in a completely different direction, and good for
him.
|3.7.07 @ 4:15PM|#
He went in the McCain direction. You know, "I'm a
maverick!"
Every once in a while when he does this, like here, he is right,
but I'd not read anything insightful into anything the man
says.
He's basically trying to say that there is a nebulous connection
between his intentions to clean up government with finance reform
and pork reform like this, so vote for him.
ed|3.7.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Not to be mean or anything, but using McCain as the "face" for pork reform -- even as his face grows increasingly bloated and porcine these past few months -- I have no punch line. Sorry.
Memory Hole|3.7.07 @ 4:33PM|#
From the January Jeff Flake H&R thread:
joe
jf,
"[joe] Will you be thanking the Republicans, particularly Jim Demint, any time soon for forcing Reid to adopt the stricter amended bill?"
I'll have the same warm place in my heart for them as for the guy who added "sex" to the Civil Rights Act in hopes of sinking it.
I guess DeMint fucked up!
Memory Hole|3.7.07 @ 4:51PM|#
The old thread was linked in this post. Oooh, ooh ooh,
yourself.
So, did DeMint's clever plan to sink the bill backfire, joe?
barneca|3.7.07 @ 5:06PM|#
"what joe wishes would happen"
a short one act play by barneca
[snip most of play]
agatha "memory hole" christie: "and the murderer is...joe!" (points
to joe)
joe: "(gulp)....look, over there, a purple elephant in pink tights
with a cherry on top!" (points behind crowd)
crowd: (turns around and looks)
joe: (runs away)
-fin-
|3.7.07 @ 5:15PM|#
barnenca,
That's an odd take, since someone else changed the subject of the
thread TO ME.
VM|3.7.07 @ 5:19PM|#
Top Ten Things joe can do that Chuck Norris Can't:
1) Plan cities in a single bound (*now retired)
2) left shift, right shift, ctrl XYZZY faster
3) pester meletary lawyrez (sic) more
4) cross reference
5) there is NO! number 5
6) philosophically spelunk Memory's hole (hmmm)
7) Form wondertwins with Mr. Steven Crane
8) TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE!!!! MICHIGAN!!!
9) challenge teh Intertubes
10) Crawl faster than Warren????? (don't wanna know)
**list not actual
**prizes not fantastic.
|3.7.07 @ 5:30PM|#
Q: What's behind joe's hippie poncho?
A: Another five year plan.
joe's trust-fund commie dreads can cure AGW. Unfortunately, joe
will never cut his dreads.
Memory Hole|3.7.07 @ 5:41PM|#
Remember, kids: one quote on a losertarian intarweb site =
stalking + intarweb celebrity!
That's 100% not-stupid!
|3.7.07 @ 5:57PM|#
joe's trust-fund commie dreads can cure AGW. Unfortunately,
joe will never cut his dreads.
Not at all my mental picture of joe. joe is 5'8" tall, skinny, but
in a wiry way, very short hair, receding hair line. He wear lots of
work shirts, always tucked into his blue jeans or khakis.
If anyone else would like to know how I picture them, let me
know.
|3.7.07 @ 7:25PM|#
Skipping over the joe skewerings.....
jf,
As I recall, the Republicans refused to pass the FY07
appropriations before the election or even in the lame duck
session, to try to embarrass the Dems somehow. Then the Dems came
in and cut out all the R earmarks. Whoops.
|3.7.07 @ 8:15PM|#
All right, serious answer, I've got to give Flake credit. He's
clearly paid some dues for bucking the leadership on the
issue.
Unlike McCain, whose maverick status is all talk. He makes noises
for a week and then caves.
Looks like he found the camera again.
Memory Hole|3.7.07 @ 11:55PM|#
It seemed so simple. joe thought DeMint was acting in bad faith.
Does he still believe it?
My thought was: hey, good on the Democrats for passing reform (this
is a lot of why i voted for you sumbitches), and good on DeMint for
getting a seemingly better version through the senate. So, did
DeMint do good on purpose, or was he just not careful what he asked
for?
I guess the confusion stemmed from the fact that I'm a
super-independent thinker, just crazy-smart, and my wiener affects
the tides, and all ya'll can't handle how real I am. Plus, I don't
see everything through some super hyper-fucking-partisan
hack-fucking-lens, I was only thinking about the result of the
legislation, because I CARE. But now I know what happens when
someone shakes up joey's narrow little world a couple of
nanometers. sorry joe, this isn't the washington monthly and kevin
drum isn't here to spoon you. fuck fuck RAAAH INTERNET ATTACK!!1!
**
** I think this is the only way to get through to the little
hothouse flower, based on ANGRY JOE in the past. I'm not really a
lunatic.
|3.8.07 @ 10:30AM|#
James,
A cross between Lou Reed and Jesus, or Lou Reed and Elvis. The
image flickers.
brotherben,
No deal.
|3.9.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Memory Hole,
Take a breath, and look at what I wrote three and half hours before
your little outburst.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245