People always get mad about pork in politics: unless it is for their own states or communities. Then we are oddly all for it.
Well, there are always going to be necessary federal project. The genius comes in steering those toward your state.
Of course the truth lies in the votes selected. Seven of the twelve votes rated were sponsored by Tom Coburn--who is a nutball and somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.
I could come up with 12 votes on pet Republican pork and the ratings would be exactly opposite.
I am curious, Josh, why did you find this propaganda interesting? Seems like boilerplate campaign B.S. to me.
The list is a product of conservative blowhard Glenn "Instapundit" Reynold's Porkbusters project. Take a look at porkbusters.org to get a feel for the dubious credibility of the report.
The entire Iraq war is the fattest pork of all (at $12 billion per month) for defense contractors and oil companies.
And, all of those R's up toward the top of the list would have voted for and keep voting for the war.
Without pork, we wouldn't have Grand Coulee (or the entire BPA, when you get right down to it) or the Amtrak Cascades. And those are two of my favorite things. If only I could take the Cascades to Grand Coulee.....
Give me the bacon, babies. It's much tastier than those old warhorses.
I'm not here to defend pork. I think Senator Byrd has done a fine job of that on his own. But this list strikes me as methodologically unsound. Why? Take a look at the list of Senators with a rating of zero, indicated NO votes for reform. Note the presence in this section of John Barrasso (R-WY). Senator Barrasso was nominated by the Governor of Wyoming to fill a vacancy on June 22. That was less than three weeks ago. How is it fair to consider him as, essentially, identical to Senator Byrd, who has long defended the practice of earmarks?
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).