Forgive me a little gloating. It looks as if The Indianapolis Star agrees with me on our "have it both ways" Hoosier politicians:
Despite his protests against pork-barrel projects, Bayh is something of a latecomer to the fight. He's seeking almost $10 million in earmarks in the omnibus legislation. Yet, that figure is only about a third of what Republican Sen. Richard Lugar packed into the bill.
Indiana's king of pork is 1st District Rep. Pete Visclosky, credited with $29.3 million in earmarks. Visclosky's total is nearly equal to the combined cost of earmarks sought by Indiana's eight other U.S. representatives. To their credit, neither Rep. Dan Burton nor Rep. Mike Pence added any earmarks.
Comments
What, you didn't get the "Hope and Change" memo?
And if Rep. Mike Pence was my Congressman with so little clout he couldn't bring money into my district, I'd boot his ass out of office. Leave it to others to argue principles; I want tax dollars in my neighborhood.
AJ
Andrew, Your comment "Leave it to others to argue principles; I want tax dollars in my neighborhood" is what I would argue is the problem.
The job of a legislator is to legislate. To make laws, change policy, and repeal laws that pertain to their home constituency, not to pander to and for their constituents. They are supposed to be lawmakers not "deal brokers".
It was about 10 years ago when it started to sink in with me, when I began noticing Mark Souders' campaign had taken the same familiar track. Obviously there was the flip flop on term limiting himself, but more troubling was his flat out honesty about "I need to be re-elected so I can go to Washington and bring back Indiana's share" when campaigning. His job ought not to be about bringing money back, it should be about keeping here to begin with.
I'm not questioning his personal morality, I'm just pointing out that he figured out what the job had become and how he adapted to it. He's not a lawmaker anymore, now he's just like the rest of them, an unapologetic shill for all sides caught up in the cycle.
if it's not a level playing field, why would I want some parts of the country to get tax largesse while I got bupkus? The Souders of this world quickly learned, once in office, either everyone said no to earmarks or try your best to get some of those dollar back to you constituents. Being a purist while everyone else is playing a different game is nonsense, not something I would want my congressman to do. I want results, not philosophy. And I covered Mark when he first got elected and he recognized in politics you adapt, you compromise. The system you would like doesn't exist and hasn't for eons.
AJ
Well, call me crazy, but I would like for elected representatives not to adapt, but to do what they are supposed to do.
I don't subscribe to your theory that "since everyone else is doing it, I guess I'll just do the same". That doesn't make it ok.
If not for the people with principles, nothing would ever change for the better.
I always thought you "journalists" were big believers in "principles".
Tim,
Either Andrew is baiting the hook or he has become totally cynical. The professional curruption of men like Rep. Souder and their willingness to go along with business-as-usual is rottting the system to its core. The tax dollars re-planted in Indiana originated in this state and should have remained there to begin with; if they did not, then they are American tax dollars the majority of which should have remained American wallets; if neither, then they are money borrowed from foreign investors to be paid back by Andrew's kids.
So long as we are represented by career opportunists we're headed for the crapper. BTW, "latecomer" Sen.Bayh, as you may be noticed, recently posted his position regarding the Omnibus Appropriations Act in March 4th's Wall Street Journal:http://bayh.senate.gov/news/speeches/release/?id=92d80fab-3c17-4039-9ec3-ec8850e30121
What principals? Conservatives make it sound that the minute a congressman ditches the "I'm not going to play that game" and advocates for tax dollars coming into his or her district, they are co-opted and become corrupt and rotten. Nobody says theft here or swindling or bribes in return for earmark money to a specific district. It's just good politicking and the art of compromise to be successful as a representative to bring in money for your constituents. Hell, how is this different then if the money stays in Indiana and your state rep has to fight and lobby Indy to send money to Fort Wayne for a public works project like Headwaters Park? Are they corrupt and rotten too? It's the same game on the state level.
AJ