Best paragraph:
… Porkbusters represent what is arguably the only grassroots movement
since 1994 to gain traction and build momentum on the core American
principle of limited government. The Porkbusters movement is not
particularly concerned with the electoral fate of Republicans or
Democrats, but they are concerned with the fate of the Republic and
their own tax dollars. Quite simply, Porkbusters is a movement
comprised of individuals who are just plain sick of their money being
wasted, quite often in secret, by self-serving politicians.
Best line: "…until American taxpayers can trust Republicans to correctly handle the ‘small things,’ like Bridges to Nowhere, they will never trust us to
handle the ‘big things,’ like Medicare and Social Security."
Update (17 May). Oo! Oo! I just love it when I beat Glenn Reynolds to a hot topic! He’s my favorite news aggregator, and he usually gets to all the good stuff by 7 or 8 in the morning, but I got lucky today. I think I’ll buy myself a beer.
Update (17 May). OK, four beers. It gets better and better. Ramesh Ponnuru has dubbed me an excitable blogger, apparently because he couldn’t find anyone else to hold up as a bad example. Let me be a bit more precise: Mr Ponnuru has done some excellent work, but his article on porkbusting hit a bit too close to home. Not because I’ve been involved with earmarks, but because this part reminded me of my time working in DoD:
Republican senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina says that some
congressmen vote for bloated spending bills because they contain
earmarks for their districts: “The game . . . encouraged everyone to be
asking for money and everyone to be voting for bills that were bigger
than the budget that had been voted for earlier.” Federal agencies, he
adds, ask Congress for more money than they need, because they know
that Congress will direct them to spend some of that money in ways they
don’t want.
It is certainly true, as DeMint says, that earmarks can buy support
for government-expanding bills. But they can buy support for
government-shrinking bills, too.
Yeah, and I’m gonna lose all this weight I put on over the Christmas holidays. Everyone who’s worked in state or federal government knows that this is only the tip of the budget iceberg. Rule Zero of budgeting is to SPEND ANYTHING LEFT OVER BY THE END OF THE YEAR, otherwise two bad things will happen: (1) someone else will get to spend that money, and (2) you won’t get as much money next year. The Double-Secret Rule is to ask for money you know you won’t get. Why? Because at the end of the year, some Honorable Fool will have a surplus, and, with luck, you’ll be the one who gets to spend his money! (The official term is fallout funds.) I worked in an organization that funded multimillion-dollar programs of strategic importance this way, and much of them were crap, and I helped. When I retired from federal service, I deliberately did not look for employment with defense contractors, although several would have eagerly hired me. I found the whole processes despicable, I wanted out and I got out, and then Ponnuru went out of his way to remind me of all the shuck and jive I’d perpetrated. Until you’re inside the Excuse Machine, you have no idea how corrupting it can be. Heck, maybe I am excitable.
Update (18 May). Ramesh Ponnuru has posted a short response to Senator Coburn’s article. Ponnuru makes a good point that conservatives should set priorities and put their efforts where they do the most good. Unfortunately, this ignores the demoralizing and ultimately corrupting influence of the whole earmarking, logrolling, budget-gaming mindset in Congress. I think Ponnuru and Coburn are talking about the problem from two widely different angles, and only occasionally connecting. Well, that’s why I read NRO.
Update (23 May). This is what I mean. Tip from the Instapundit.
The Random Texan 
Leave a comment