Pork Reform

George Will article on legislative reform and pork.

After Abramoff. After DeLay. After the "K Street Project" -- the torrid and mutually satisfying dalliance of Republican members with lobbyists. Now Republicans are prepared to be, or at least want to be seen to be, chaste. They are determined to devise reforms to steer Congress away from the shoals of sin, so they are receiving many suggestions from Washington's permanent cohort of Dawnists.

Those are people who believe that, given good intentions and institutional cleverness, an era of civic virtue will dawn. They are mistaken, but there are some reforms that, although they will not guarantee virtue, will complicate vice, which is as much progress as is possible in this naughty world.

Sorry, I don't want them to "appear chaste," I want them to "be" chaste. But then Will's suggestions sound fairly reasonable, and therefore will likely be ignored.

End the use of continuing resolutions. Adopted at the end of fiscal years when Congress does not complete appropriations bills, continuing resolutions usually authorize the government to continue spending at current levels. If Congress had to get its work done on time -- if the only alternative were a chaotic government shut-down -- it would. Then Congress would have less reason to loiter in Washington doing mischief. Speaking of which . . .

Forbid appropriations to private entities. Government money should flow directly to government agencies -- federal, state or local. And those agencies should be required to formally testify that local projects receiving national funding serve essential national needs. Appropriations that are, effectively, cash flows from individual representatives to private entities are invitations to corruption. Federal money directed to private entities was what ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., was bribed to deliver.

This will never happen. Though I'd wager that this would clean house in a big way. Once funds fall into the private entity's hands they are pretty much completely outside of review processes that are required of government agencies. At that point abuse is just far too easy.

So, end "earmarks." They write into law a representative's or senator's edict that a particular sum be spent on a particular project in his or her state or district.

Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, has written to the House leadership that, "With the number and dollar value of earmarks more than quadrupling over the past decade, pork-barrel spending has become an unfortunate hallmark of our Republican majority." Arguing that additional restrictions on lobbying, although perhaps needed, would be "peripheral reform at best," Flake says, "We first have to look at our own conduct." To do otherwise "would do more to feed public cynicism than restore public confidence."

Often, earmarks are included in neither the House nor Senate versions of an appropriations bill, but are inserted surreptitiously and at the last minute in the report of the conference committee -- and the House rule against this is routinely waived. Flake's legislation would prohibit federal agencies from funding any earmark not contained in a bill's actual legislative language. And the bill would allow a point-of-order to prevent the waiving of House rules against including non-germane spending -- earmarks not included in either House or Senate spending bills -- in conference reports.

That's an excellent proposal. I have repeatedly been angered by legislation that has earmarks added or other non-related legislation. These also tend to be used as political fodder. You have to love when funding for some universally supported cause is tacked inappropriately onto a military spending or transportation bill. The politicos won't vote down the entire bill to defeat the earmark, and if they do their political rivals make it appear that the vote was against the cause and not against the original legislation.

Will goes on to state some other interesting reforms. I don't doubt these would be good, but I really doubt that any politician wants to see that much reform.

In the reform vain, I did get a laugh at Harry Reid's contention that the Democrats will clean up Washinton.

The problem is Washington is run by leaders who put their own political interests ahead of America's interests. Wined and dined by their well-connected friends, these individuals have forgotten who they really work for.

Wonder at the size of the beam in that eye? I certainly do. Believing that Democrats will do any more cleaning than the Republicans have done is plainly silly. Lobbyist reform is not in their interest. Just look at what that imbecile Delay did with K street. (If you need further reason to loathe Delay, this is a perfect topic to raise your blood pressure.)

Reid has some interesting further contentions.

There's a price to pay for this corruption, and it's the American people who are forced to pay it. Year after year, they see special interests get the perks, while their priorities go unaddressed.

Consider 2005. Last year, the United States Congress did not pass a single item of legislation to make health care more affordable, to create high-paying, quality jobs, to help seniors live more secure retirements or to help middle-class families make ends meet.

Funny, Congress includes the Democrats who didn't seem capable of providing any suggestions for solutions. They did manage to yell a lot about how wrong all attempts at legislation was. I don't see it as being corruption, but I do see it as holding one end of a rope and blaming the other end for pulling.

He is right on this though:

Now, look what the Republican Congress did manage to do. It supported billions of dollars in tax breaks for special interests and multimillionaires and paid for them by cutting student loans and health care for seniors.

I found this exceptionally irritating. Not so much for the tax cuts as for cutting funding to systems that provide useful benefits while failing to control extreme pork spending in appropriations funding. The Dems got no allowance for doing the right thing here either. The Repubs just don't seem to care though. Just as long as they get their share of the pork, they're just going to plow on.

Then Reid just slays me with this line:

Honest leadership isn't a partisan goal. It is the key to a stronger union. When leaders work together in a bipartisan manner and put progress ahead of politics, there is no limit to how far America can go.

Oh please. You think anyone believes you on a statement like that? Reid plays the partisan B.S. at a forte. He and his Repub opposition don't want to have leadership that benefits America, they want leadership that will benefit their opinions alone.

What wouldn't I do for a true reform party. The present two party system just doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere useful.