Obey passes mash notes on pork?
posted at 6:45 pm on March 5, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
David Obey has sent out a survey to House Republicans to determine whether they will request earmarks for the 2009 budget after calling for a one-year moratorium. In what can only be called a display of sanctimony, Obey demands that they go on record as eschewing pork requests without the Democrats following suit, and he’s using a check-box form that recalls middle-school mash notes:
In an unusual move, Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) is surveying Republican House members on whether they support a temporary moratorium on earmarks or whether they will continue to submit earmark requests for fiscal 2009.
The survey appears to be challenging GOP members who support an earmark moratorium to practice what they preach and not seek earmarks.
In a March 5 “Dear Colleague” letter , Obey wrote, “In light of the continuing discussion in the Republican Conference, the Appropriations Committee needs to determine how it would proceed.”The letter asks members to check one of two boxes indicating whether they will be submitting earmark requests in 2009.
The first box reads: “I believe the House should suspend earmarks for the year. Consistent with this position, I will therefore be submitting no earmark requests for fiscal year 2009.”
The second box states: “I believe the House should continue to provide responsible earmarks at a reasonable level and consistent with that position, I will be submitting appropriate requests for fiscal year 2009.”
We have argued that the House caucus undermined their position on pork reform by not committing to a unilateral moratorium. If the earmarking process is broken — and it is — then Republicans should have refused to participate in it, rather than only offering to do so if Democrats agreed. Otherwise, it serves as a tacit admission that either the process isn’t broken or that Republicans won’t take any risks to fix it for the good of the country.
That being said, David Obey has no standing whatsoever to scold anyone on pork. On the Club for Growth’s RePork Card for 2007, Obey goose-egged at 0%. Not only did he not vote for any pork reform bill, he actually voted against his own reform bill. He had proposed to strike all earmarks from the Labor-HHS bill, and then opposed the idea when it came to a vote.
If Obey wants a moratorium, then he should follow Henry Waxman (D-CA) and support it. Since he lacks the courage to do that, Obey wants to embarrass Republicans instead. They left themselves in position to get challenged, but it’s more than a little ridiculous for someone stuffing their face at the pork pull to waggle a finger at others at the table.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Conservatives have moral principles and standards which both they and their opponents expect them to abide where liberals have no moral standards and conservatives recoil from exacting any on them.
aengus on March 5, 2008 at 6:54 PM
As I understand this page, republications are taking the pledge and it’s not just for 2009. (via Instapundit) It’s up to 22 at the moment.
And Waxman is there.
Dusty on March 5, 2008 at 6:59 PM
But he may have done us a favor trying to get our professional political spenders on the record, ear marks or not.
Zorro on March 5, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Could this possibly be because of riders?
Ed – I really don’t mean to insult your reporting, but the effect of riders on bills is a passion of mine, and one that should be brought into the public awareness. Careers are brought to an end via voting records where it is not stated that a rider is why someone voted against something that otherwise would have passed with flying colors and been applauded by the constituency. It’s something that pisses me off greatly, because the population is manipulated by their ignorance, and no one tries to educate them in this regard. It’s a MAJOR power that politicians have, and it’s entirely destructive.
Whew.
/rant
shibumiglass on March 5, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Seriously, they better find a way to make it work for them or they’ll just lose out to somebody that will bring home the bacon.
TBinSTL on March 5, 2008 at 7:29 PM
So, when the Republicans all (of course) refuse to respond to his idiotic one-sided letter, the Democrats will accuse them of “refusing” to limit pork.
Of course, the Republicans could beat them to the punch by accusing Democrats of sending a letter asking that only they be allowed to add pork…
But I guess we won’t be doing that, will we? The Republican leadership has decided the “New Tone” worked so incredibly well that we need to expand it into a policy of “Unilaterally Assured Suicide.”
logis on March 5, 2008 at 7:55 PM
I believe this is called an oxymoron.
Just like “comprehensive immigration reform”.
madmonkphotog on March 5, 2008 at 8:23 PM
I’ve never liked the thought of federally generated taxes being used for state projects. I think I like the idea of Republicans supporting that even less though…
How is pork still an issue if Americans hate it? Are we really powerless to hold our legislation accountable? Yep.
blankminde on March 5, 2008 at 8:30 PM
blankminde
are they still doing ‘revenue sharing‘; perhaps by another name. It was a program started by Nixon. Rather than reduce federal taxes, because the federal government had too much money, and no idea where they were going to spend it, Nixon used it to buy support from political power brokers.
That is probably where all that FICA revenue went.
Then there is something called ‘americorp’.
We have a 3 trillion dollar budget, and its not enough. [expletive deleted]
rockhauler on March 5, 2008 at 9:00 PM
This is sooo partisan. Maybe the Republicans should say nothing about the issue except to ask the Democratic response to the letter.
snaggletoothie on March 5, 2008 at 9:02 PM
At this point neither party can claim any moral high ground on pork, perhaps the finest argument ever for term limits.
We honestly have more Government than America, even with a healthy economy, can truly afford now.
old trooper on March 5, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Amazing.
.
My favs-
.
.
too bad Peloser doesn’t vote, she might have received a minus 4 (-4)
.
End result?
The average Republican score was 43%. The average Democratic score was 2%.
Get a form for that, Obey.
shooter on March 5, 2008 at 11:10 PM
What Republicans need to do is call their bluff, and every single one needs to agree to it…then hammer the ‘Crats loudly and publicly for continuing the theft.
The ‘Crats would fold like a cheap suit.
91Veteran on March 6, 2008 at 12:06 AM
I wouldn’t trust any Dem about any promises they make. Too many times they have broken said promise.
Worst still, the Repubs fall for it too.
JohnnyD on March 6, 2008 at 6:49 AM
Or, how about this: Copy the entire letter, including Harry Reid’s own signature, and then re-address it to all the DEMOCRAT Congressmen – including Harry Reid.
Then start screaming at the top of their lungs about how all the Democrats refused to respond to their own leader’s survey on pork spending; and that Harry Reid also refused – even though he wrote it himself.
logis on March 6, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Oops. The above should refer to Obey instead of Reid.
logis on March 6, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Comment pages: