RSS
Hillary Clinton: Porker
Posted by Karl on Apr 2nd, 2008
2008
Apr 2
The good folks over at Citizens Against Government Waste released the 2008 edition of their annual Pig Book.
Hillary Clinton loves pork! In 2007, she took 281 earmarks totaling an astounding $296.2 million.
Barack took 53 earmarks totaling $97.4 million. At least we can put to rest the notion that Barack Hussein Obama is a secret Muslim.
On the other hand, John McCain, in 22 years in the Senate, has NEVER taken an earmark. The difference in this year’s election is stark. We may not agree with everything McCain stands for, but on this issue, he is as conservative as they come.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 am
Here’s the problem with earmarks people fail to realize:
the money being earmarked is already set forth by the executive in a budget. The money being earmarked has already been accounted for. As such, earmarks don’t decrease government spending one iota. As a matter of fact, if that money isn’t spent, it gets kicked back to the executive branch, which pretty much treats it as disposable income. So by never taking an earmark, McCain has basically failed to use funds already apportioned by the executive for spending and has kicked it back to that branch, giving it more power. To say this is conservative is a misnomer at best, misrepresentation at worst.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Thank you Superfluous man. But what is an earmark?
No one knows for sure:
http://www.slate.com/id/2139454/
What, exactly, is an earmark? - By Daniel Engber - Slate Magazine
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
Exactly, Superfluous.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
SM (and sycophants):
I’m quite frankly stunned.
SM says: “[B]y never taking an earmark, McCain has basically failed to use funds already apportioned by the executive for spending and has kicked it back to that branch, giving it more power.” McCain is an evil liberal who seeks to aggrandize the executive power of the central government because he doesn’t tax us more and spend more. Interesting argument. Maybe that’s why he is running for president.
It’s the sort of logic I would expect from LTG, but not from you, SM.
Explain to me how it is a virtue to tax the citizens more than is truly needed to fund the legitimate purposes of government. If the government does over-tax us and finds itself with excess funds, does that mean it should then allocate those funds to use as bribery to solidify the positions of those who can grab more of the funds?
You Ron-Paul-whackjobs, justify this position arguing from the Constitution. How does the EXECUTIVE branch have any power to allocate funds for anything in the first place? And, how does the EXECUTIVE branch get a kickback if congressmen opt not to spend the funds that the EXECUTIVE branch so beneficently bestowed out of its bounty on these congressmen?
[Fill in cricket sounds here]
I’m waiting.
[More cricket sounds]
There used to be a time when conservatives would make the argument that the federal government ought not to spend money on things like the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. I am saddened that day has apparently passed. Wouldn’t it be better to go McCain’s route, refuse to take earmarks, and return that money to the taxpayers who earned it? Wouldn’t you almost say that the stand McCain has taken for 22 years is, in reality, virtuous?
April 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Karl, not only did you misunderstand what I said, but you misunderstand your own argument. I’ll be back later to explain why.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
As a Ron Paul whackjob, I’ll just say that my understanding is that it goes like this- the Monument Department gets X dollars, which it would have as a general budget with discretion on which monument it is spent on, except Congressman Porker decides to earmark a fraction of the X dollars to build the Porker Monument back home. So, earmarks or not, Superfluous argues, the same $X will be taxed and spent by Uncle Sam. Fair enough. However, this is from a Heritage Foundation backgrounder on the subject:
“…most of the specific targets of discretionary domestic spending programs are ultimately determined not by federal departments and bureaucrats, but by governors, mayors, and state agencies, who are arguably as close, if not closer, to the people and local priorities than congressional staff or well-paid Washington lobbyists.”
Therefore, earmarking actually aggrandizes the federal government at the expense of states and local communities, SM’s argument notwithstanding.
Of course, I would just as soon see most federal departments flat-out abolished.
Go Cards!
April 4th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
… Plus it should be mentioned that the entire earmarking process is an utterly corrupt process of creating a vast tax-funded slush fund for influential lobbyists and campaign contributors.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Karl, the point is that what can be earmarked CANNOT be returned to taxpayers. It’s money already appropriated for something, as I understand it.
It’s all pigs feeding at the teat, anyway, whether something’s earmarked or not. Promoting McCain by claiming he’s never claimed an earmark is to praise him for not eating out of one trough, even though he’s clearly feasting out of all of the others.
I did appreciate your argument by cricket-sounds approach.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Willmoore writes“…most of the specific targets of discretionary domestic spending . . . local priorities”
Those locals who use federal taxes to hide their actual spending, because the taxes are not assessed locally, are the first ones I want the shaft given too.
St. Thomas writes Q66A3, “it belongs properly to theft that it consists in “taking another’s thing secretly.” , which is the shell game the locals play in complicity of the Feds. at the expense of those they serve.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Karl writes : “It’s the sort of logic I would expect from LTG, but not from you, SM.”
I like it. It’s not often that one has the pleasure of being used as bludgeon. Especially so because its an instrumental cause whose affectiveness lies in a common recognition of an attribute.
But as opposed to using me as a bludgeon, may I suggest using me as a Catholic would, and not as an cultural American does.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Burnman writes: “Karl, the point is that what can be earmarked CANNOT be returned to taxpayers. It’s money already appropriated for something, as I understand it.”
If that is what you take to be the point, then you have missed the point. If these CANNOT be returned to the taxpayers and we can agree that these funds are spent wastefully, then why should they be appropriated from the taxpayers in the first place?
If more congressmen like Senator McCain refused earmarks, that would put pressure on the budgeteers to stop appropriating the money in the first place.