http://www.examiner.com/a-1194444~T...armarks__Good_government_vs__pay_to_play.html [rquoter] Commentary Timothy Carney: McCain vs. Hillary on earmarks: Good government vs. pay to play Timothy Carney WASHINGTON - President Bush, in his State of the Union address Monday, reinvigorated public discussion of earmarks — lawmakers’ specific spending items inserted into appropriations bills. While fiscal conservatives in Washington are skeptical about Bush’s ability to do much on the issue, the president may be helping his party by bringing up this issue, which touched on fiscal conservatism, government transparency and political corruption. Earmarks, and their use of tools of corruption, could play a large role in the 2008 presidential contest if the current front-runners succeed in grabbing their respective parties’ nominations. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is a leading opponent of pork and one of the only lawmakers to forswear earmarks, while Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is Congress’ leading porker. Clinton’s earmarking is not merely offensive to procedural purists who demand spending go through standard channels. It also is not merely a transgression against fiscal conservatism. Clinton’s earmarks often directly benefit specific corporations and businessmen, who, in turn, make large contributions to her campaign. This “pay-to-play” earmarking, as one left-leaning budget watchdog group put it, highlights the truly dirty side of earmarks and plays to McCain’s most famous theme: the corrosive effects of money in politics. McCain earned floods of media praise — and conservative criticism — during his most celebrated crusade in the name of good government: the 2001 “Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act,” also known as McCain-Feingold. Most Republican politicians and Beltway conservative activists and journalists assailed this bill, supposed to “get corporate money out of politics,” as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech and a useless tool for cleaning up government corruption. The conservative way to clean up government is embodied in “Wheeler’s Law,” articulated by the late National Review writer Timothy Wheeler: “The way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of the high places.” On the question of earmarks, at least, McCain seems to understand this, and his crusade against them is probably his chief virtue among conservatives. In this election season, it could also be his chief contrast to Clinton. Clinton’s most eye-catching earmarks might be the two $5 million line items for a mall in upstate New York. The Syracuse mall, called DestiNY, made a grand entrance into federal politics in 2005, when Clinton, together with local congressman James Walsh, Republican, put $10 million of earmarks for the project into the highway bill. Syracuse City Councilwoman Stephanie Miner, who is supporting Clinton for president, called government funding for the mall “corporate welfare.” The developer behind the project is New Yorker Robert J. Congel, who has been a generous contributor to politicians, mostly Republicans. They make an exception for Clinton, however. Federal Election Commission records show Congel and his wife have contributed $26,700 to Clinton’s campaigns and political action committees. Clinton has also pocketed thousands in contributions from Congel’s family and business associates. The Los Angeles Times reports that Congel also held a fundraiser for Clinton that netted $50,000. Many of Clinton’s other earmark beneficiaries are also her campaign contributors, fundraisers or prominent endorsers. Clinton secured $1.6 million in the 2006 defense appropriations bill for the New School on Social Research, where one trustee was Clinton fundraiser Norman Hsu, who raised $850,000 for Clinton before being indicted on fraud charges in December. Clinton has since returned the money. It might be impossible to track down how many more Hsus and Congels are out there filling Clinton’s coffers and pocketing taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), a left-leaning organization, says Clinton has secured 360 earmarks worth $2.2 billion, and many of them benefit Clinton donors. That’s why TCS research director Keith Ashdown told the L.A. Times, “Clinton has made aggressive use of the pay-to-play earmark game.” For McCain, it’s easy to keep track: He doesn’t earmark. While earmarking is not the only avenue of corporate-political corruption, it’s the most blatant and the easiest way for lawmakers to make friends and woo donors. Clintonian expertise in turning government power into political advantage makes her a formidable opponent, but McCain’s image as a reformer, combined with his reality as an earmark scourge, could boost the underdog Republicans this election year.[/rquoter]
it's likely the only people who are "pro-pork" are the recipients of the government largess. there's much i'm ambivalent about regarding mccain, but his stance on this issue, is one more check mark on the "pro" side of his ledger, in addition to his unwavering support for the war.
President Bush, in his State of the Union address Monday, reinvigorated public discussion of earmarks — lawmakers’ specific spending items inserted into appropriations bills. Bush is against ALL earmarks that he does not control. It brings a tear to my eye that Bush's last two years in office will not go the way he wanted.
