emailaddr.jpg










About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 24, 2006 9:58 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Not-All-That-Bright.

The next post in this blog is High School.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Blogs We Read

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33

« Not-All-That-Bright | Main | High School »

Pork: Its for Congress

How many essays have you read lately defending Congressional earmarks?

Not many I assume. Well Jay Cost produced one at Real Clear Politics and its not as controversial as it might appear at first glance.


So, as the title indicates, I am to be counted as one of the few defenders of pork. Is it a good in itself? No, of course not. It is, however, a consequence, an unfortunate side effect, of an otherwise very excellent system of government. As getting rid of pork requires one to tinker around with the system, I prefer pork.

Cost explains the motivations for earmarks very well, and for seasoned political wonks, none of this will be very surprising--objectionable perhaps, but not surprising. Its a long article, but one example serves to provide a crystal-clear insight into the nature of the problem.

Why did Shelly Moore Capito decide not to run against the 88-year old Robert Byrd in West Virginia, a state that, by many measures, is one of the most conservative in America? There are a number of reasons, and you can see a good many of them on the drive down I-79 from Morgantown to Charleston. His name is on every third road sign. This is a symbol of Byrd's extensive work for the state. Ask the average West Virginian Bush voter what he thinks of Byrd, and he will tell you that Robert Byrd is good for West Virginia. He cares about West Virginians and he is doing what he can to help them - the proof is in the pork. Byrd is a Democrat, but this logic transcends party lines. And its pull is more powerful than any member's desire to limit the size and scope of the federal government: limiting government requires members to be in government, which in turn requires them to expand government.

We've met the enemy, and he is us.

Cost's explanation is right on the money, but I don't think its the real issue. neurotoxins in small doses can be medicinal, but beyond that we call it a poison. Political rhetoric tends to polarize, demanding all-or-nothing solutions for problems that would be better treated by "correct dosage". A glass of wine everyday allegedly improves your health, but a couple of daily bottles makes you an alcoholic. As Cost demonstrates, a lttle pork is good for the system, but we aren't talking about a little pork here--we're talking about a herd of hogs. The growth of spending is if not unprecedented, pretty impressive, and it needs to be reined-in hard.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.uncorrelated.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/368

Post a comment

(This site no longer requires authentication for unmoderated comments to be posted immediately. Simply enter your comment with a valid email address and type the challenge word into the field below before posting. UNCoRRELATED accepts no editorial responsibility for the comments posted here, but will by discretion, remove vulgar, abusive or commercially-motivated comments. You may receive email notification of follow-up comment by clicking on the Subscribe to this entry checkbox.)





Tom-Mannis.jpg thinkingblogger.jpg









Google PageRank 
Checker - Page Rank Calculator

Blogroll Me!

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Subscribe in Rojo

Add UNCoRRELATED to Newsburst from CNET News.com

Add to My AOL

Subscribe in FeedLounge

Add to netvibes

Subscribe in Bloglines

Add to The Free Dictionary

Add to The Free Dictionary

Add to Plusmo

Subscribe in NewsAlloy

Add to Excite MIX

Add to netomat Hub

Add to Webwag

Add UNCoRRELATED to ODEO

Subscribe in podnova

Add to Pageflakes