Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Club for Growth releases it's "RePork Card" on Congress

That's right. A "repork" card tracking how well the Congress did against pork and earmarks. Don't be disappointed here. We could have predicted this report a mile away:

Even though the Democratic majority vowed to return Congress to a path of fiscal responsibility, the 2008 appropriations bills were stuffed with wasteful pork projects. While Representatives John Campbell, Jeff Flake, Jeb Hensarling, Scott Garrett, and David Obey (1 amendment) offered 50 amendments to strip outrageous pork projects from the appropriations bills, only one amendment, offered by Rep. Jeff Flake, passed.

The Club for Growth has compiled a RePORK Card of all members' votes on all 50 anti-pork amendments (see below). "Taxpayers have a right to know which congressmen stand up for them and which stand up for the special interests," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey.

"Unfortunately, the Club for Growth RePORK Card shows that most congressmen care more about lining their buddies' pockets than they care about protecting American taxpayers."

Some interesting numbers to consider:

Sixteen congressmen scored a perfect 100%, voting for all 50 anti-pork amendments. They are all Republicans.

The average Republican score was 43%. The average Democratic score was 2%.

The average score for appropriators was 4%. The average score for non-appropriators was 25%.

Kudos to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) who scored an admirable 98%-the only Democrat to score above 20%.

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) did not vote for his own amendment to strike all earmarks in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Rep. Obey scored an embarrassing 0% overall.

105 congressmen scored an embarrassing 0%, voting against every single amendment. The Pork Hall of Shame includes 81 Democrats and 24 Republicans.

The Democratic Freshmen scored an abysmal average score of 2%. Their Republican counterparts scored an average score of 78%.

Some of the targeted pork projects this year include:

$2 million for a "Paint Shield for Protecting People from Microbial Threats," requested by Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH-11). Rep. John Campbell
challenged Murtha to demonstrate that the $2 million earmark would be effective and that it had been put up for a competitive bid. Murtha could not. Amendment failed, 91-317.

$1 million to the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, requested by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). No congressional member could confirm
the existence of the alleged Center. Amendment failed, 98-326.

$2 million to establish the "Rangel Center for Public Service" at City College of New York, requested by none other then Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY). Amendment failed, 108-316.

$34 million for the Alaska Native Education Equity program, requested by Rep. Don Young (R-AK). When Scott Garrett challenged Young's earmark, Rep. Young
declared, "You want my money, my money!" Amendment failed, 74-352.

$50,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California, requested by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA). Amendment failed, 69-352.

$100,000 for renovation of the Fire Fighters Hall in Columbus, Ohio, requested by Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH). Amendment failed, 66-364.

$100,000 for the renovation of St. Joseph College's theatre in Indiana, requested by Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN). Amendment failed, 97-328.

In short? Neither side dis really well. Both Democrats and Republicans failed, and miserably so. The only good news we get from this report is out of the "freshmen" class this session, the Republicans did much better than the Democrats. Freshman Democrats went right to work protecting their butts by sending more and more pork home.

With this in mind, it begs the question of the electorate, again, which side is better at fiscal matters? Now, second question: If the GOP base "cleans house" in 2008 -- that is they present stronger conservative candidates in the primaries, and does it's best to unseat the lazy, uncaring incumbents -- will the electorate think the change is better, or worse? Let's face cold, hard facts here: The GOP is broken right now with cozy, comfy incumbents. They need a changing of the guard. (Better than the Democrats who need a changing of the diapers with all their temper-tantrums that come to mind.)

We did a better job of trying to control it than they did, but we still need a lot of work.

(HT: Captain Ed)

Publius II


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home