« Russia, Georgia and Lessons from Munich
Washington Post-ABC News Poll: Obama Takes 9 Percent Lead Over McCain Due To Economic Fears »
Change We Can Spare (Guest Voice)
Democratic President candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s theme is the importance of change. But does his record show he really advocates change? Humorist Tom Purcell, in this Guest Voice, argues that it does not. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
Change We Can Spare
By Tom Purcell
“Boy, I can’t wait for Obama to bring us the change we need.”
“Change? What change?”
“At the Democratic National Convention, he said he’s going to cut wasteful spending in Washington! We certainly need to rein in all the taxpayer dough those birds in Washington keep squandering.”
“To be sure, Washington has been squandering plenty. President Bush’s annual budgets grew from $2 trillion to more than $3 trillion in only six years. But why do you think Obama is the guy to rein in spending?”
“Because he and Joe Biden have a record of getting the job done.”
“I hate to break your bubble, but, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, Obama and Biden are two of the biggest spenders in the Senate. Where spending is concerned, they are classified as ‘hostile and ‘unfriendly,’ respectively, according to CAGW’s rating system.”
“They are?”
“On a scale of zero to 100 percent — with 100 percent representing someone who manages taxpayer money frugally — CAGW gave Obama a 10 percent score for 2007 and a lifetime score of 18 percent.”
“That’s not so good.”
“Biden was given a zero percent score for 2007 and a lifetime score of 22 percent. The rankings make perfect sense. According to the National Journal, Obama and Biden are ranked as the first and third most liberal U.S. senators.”
“What’s so wrong about being liberal?”
“Nothing, except that many liberals believe more government programs are the best way to solve America’s problems. Both Obama and Biden have a record of promoting bigger government and more spending. Neither met an earmark they didn’t like.”
“What do you mean by ‘earmark’?”
“An earmark is an authorization to use taxpayer money to fund a specific project. Our esteemed politicians frequently slip them into various bills when nobody is watching. Some earmarks are useful, but many represent wasteful government spending at its worst.”
“Why have Obama and Biden never met an earmark they didn’t like?”
“Since he became a U.S. senator, Obama slipped nearly $1 billion in earmarks into various bills, such as three-quarters of a million to fund a visitors’ center and another $700,000 to fund soybean-disease research.”
“What’s wrong with visitors and healthier soybeans?”
“I’m in favor of both, but why do you and I have to pay for them? As for Biden, he slipped in $120 million in earmarks in 2007 alone. His earmarks funded everything from oyster-bed revitalization to the renovation of an opera house.”
“You’ll be thanking Joe the next time you go to Delaware to take in an opera. Besides, don’t all the senators waste dough? Surely McCain is just as guilty.”
“The fact is McCain has never asked for a single earmark in all the years he’s been in the Senate. Last year, he was given a 100 percent rating by CAGW and classified a ‘hero.’”
“A hero?”
“He would have been classified a ‘superhero,’ the highest classification, had he not missed so many votes while on the campaign trail. McCain also was given a lifetime rating of 88 percent.”
“OK, hotshot, then what about Sarah Palin?”
“CAGW’s ratings apply only to members of the U.S. Congress. It is the Congress, not a governor, who funds earmarks. CAGW did, however, praise Palin for cutting wasteful spending in her state.”
“Yeah, well what about that Bridge to Nowhere, the poster child of wasteful earmark spending?”
“Palin did support that project early on, but, like it or not, she was the one who finally killed it. And like it or not, it was McCain who opposed it and Obama and Biden who voted for it.”
“So you’re saying that Obama’s promises of change and reduced spending don’t correlate with his record?”
“I’m saying that if you want wasteful spending to be reined in, McCain is much more likely to do it than Obama — if that’s the kind of change you’re looking for.”
©2008 Tom Purcell. Tom is a humor columnist nationally syndicated exclusively by Cagle Cartoons. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or email cari@cagle.com. Visit Tom on the web at www.TomPurcell.com or e-mail him at Purcell@caglecartoons.com.
RESTRICTIONS: “Tom Purcell’s column may not be reprinted in general circulation print media in Pennsylvania’s Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, and Westmoreland Counties. It may appear only in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and its sister publications.
11 Responses to “Change We Can Spare (Guest Voice)”
Hmmm… This sounds like two Republicans helping each other keep their tongues to the hockey-rink ice, lest one, or both of them defect.
What a lame article. The entire thing is based on info from CAGW. Here's what Wikipedia says about them:
“Throughout its history, CAGW has been accused of fronting lobbying efforts of corporations to give them the appearance of “grassroots” support”
And you claim McCain never got one earmark? Hah! He's not doing his job then.
In the wake of GWB the old refrain about liberals being the bigger spenders rings pretty hollow… especially after this administration inherited a surplus and is leaving a disaster. I think America may be reaching the point where it isn't swayed by wornout catchphrases… even if they are in a “humor” article.
Good point, bill_k. Astroturfing is a pretty deceitful practice, right?
I don't doubt some of those criticisms of CAGW, but the fact remains that they shine the light of day on Congress's biggest porkers, providing a service for taxpayers. Now, apparently you believe that earmarks are the legitimate way for Congressional reps to provide for their constituents- but haven't you ever wondered why worthwhile projects shouldn't be openly debated in order for federal money to be appropriately allocated? Should we really be using borrowed federal dollars to fund local projects without even asking the sponsors to defend the reason for these expenditures?
I believe facts are facts, and CAGW probbaly has a reasonable basis for many of their claims, but bad reasoning is something I can't let slip.
“Never met an earmark they didn't like” is not a statement proven by a handful of sillier earmarks. Presumably those all went back to their districts and benefited their constitutants… that doesn't mean they're in love with the concept of earmark spending.
Second, I was under the impression that the whole basis of Obama's plan was to take money out of the war he would end and put it in infrastructure investment at home. Who thinks Obama's running on a platform of cutting government programs again?
Finally, “wasteful” is completely in the eye of the beholder. The classic double edge of pork is that when others get it it's pork, but when you get it it's bacon… and people like bacon. Is the Iraq War wasteful or necessary? Is the War on Drugs wasteful or necessary? Is a 700 billion bailout for Wall St wasteful or necessary? Call me when you've defined “wasteful” and we can talk.
Christine, please allow me to save our loyal opposition friends from having to repeat their hidden earmark defense………..”if Congress had to openly debate every earmark, they would never have the time to pass them all.”……..LOL!
No surprise. Obama still has to explain how he will pay for all his grandiose (and very expensive) promises. “Phase them in” does not constitute such an explanation.
I still haven't seen the details about the existing taxes he will _increase_ or the new taxes he will impose to pay for all he has been promising.
As I've noted aloud before, one of the motives for this bailout of the financial industry, if you're cynical, is that it not only steals an election issue from Obama (so far, not the case), but takes money out of Obama's hands that he might [mis]spend on those campaign vote-buying promises. There's only so much money we can spend and only so much debt we can assume; even Democrats will have to face this at some point.
One reason to resist the rush to approve the current bailout plan is to scale it back and make money available for Obama to spend on some of his promises, if he is elected.
Meanwhile, I try to be prepared for all contingencies…
http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_W06_Po…
Remixer has a great point — earmarks, 'pork' as it were, is completely in the eye of the beholder.
What's not so great for me (a voter in PA) might be just what a taxpayer in Iowa needs.
Oh, and I have to say — was this article really meant to be humorous? I'm not critiquing the writing per se,I just didn't find it funny.
Maybe it's some dry wit that I'm not getting….
http://thepajamapundit.com/
Oh, there's more to be concerned about Obama, stuff the media seems to Neglect [tm] — or is that ignore in the hope of continued effective suppression?
Obama and Ayers — this is serious taint. (Naturally, ACORN enters the picture.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765…
thePajamaPundit: why should you (or more accurately, your children and grandchildren) pay for something that doesn't benefit your own community at all but *perhaps* has some value to someone in Iowa? If the voters in Iowa feel that the project is of local importance, they can pay for it themselves.
And as for debating the importance? Um, that's kind of the whole point here- earmarks are slipped in by sidestepping the debate process (because they'd never be approved in most cases if they were actually put to a vote instead of being bundled with other bills and holding that legislation hostage unless the earmark is funded.)
DLS- while there's not that much there (smoke, not fire), Kurtz has more today about the appearance of cover up:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTM4ZmU1NG…