| ||||
July 14, 2008The Moleby Paul Jacob We've got a mole in the U.S. Congress. Not a foreign agent trying to undermine the American way of life. We’ve got plenty of homegrown politicians doing that already. No, it’s a congressman who actually opposes porkbarrel spending. Now, a few others there also combat the regime of pay-for-play earmarks, of course — too few. But this guy sounds like he’s reading a script I dictated myself. It ain’t so. But gosh, I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments. It’s Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona. His comments were picked up by C-Span and transcribed at their web site. Shadegg points out how darn corrupting the process has become. The degree of tawdry mutual back-scratching can vary. But what is happening more and more is that congressmen are creating their own corporations. Staffing these corporations with relatives and pals. And then using the secretive earmark process to send funds to this entity. Everybody wins. The congressman and the cronies do, anyway. Taxpayers lose in at least two ways. They’re losing money. And their purported representative is violating their trust. The Constitution of course is going out the window. There’s nothing in there about how congressmen may randomly lather their associates with taxpayer dough. All done without any open debate, any clear public disclosure before the money is appropriated. Shadegg thinks it’s contemptible. Mr. Congressman, when you’re right, you’re right. Paul Jacob's "Common Sense" is published by the Sam Adams Alliance. Their website can be visited at www.samadamsalliance.org. Return to the Free Liberal Homepage |
Share Your Thoughts About This Article, Send a Letter to the Editor.
Return to the Free Liberal Homepage
Your E-Mail Address:
| |||
Comments
What about Jeff Flake, also of AZ, who I've seen a number of times on CSPAN challenging earmarks one-by-one?
Posted by: Chris | July 14, 2008 04:09 PM
Feathering your own nest at the taxpayer's expense is always taudry and if found out electoral suicide. It is not, however, anything new. In the old days, congressmen controled local patronage appointments, which would be where the same kind of folk were put. What's more - bureaucracy writer Max Weber wrote that this was appropriate in a democratic system.
It must also be noted that cutting earmarks will not decrease spending, since earmarks occur under the budget allocation level in the concurrent budget resolution. Preventing earmarks merely gives the bureaucracy and the President's and Vice President's favored interests more money (can you say Haliburton?).
Posted by: Xianleftist_Michael
|
July 15, 2008 08:09 PM