Current mood:	tired
Current music:	Huey Lewis & The News - Hip To Be Square
Entry tags:	congress, corruption, porkbusters, republican party

republican leadership now *saying* that they don't approve of pork
the republican party have elected a replacement for tom delay of "there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget" fame as majority leader in the senate。 john boehner was not the reformers' choice， but nor is he the business-as-usual candidate。 here are some of boehner's words from during his campaign：

We must start by addressing the growing practice of unauthorized earmarks--language in spending bills that directs federal dollars to private entities for projects that are not tied to an existing federal program or purpose. The public knows the practice better by a different name--pork-barreling. Unauthorized earmarks squander taxpayer dollars and lack transparency. They feed public cynicism. They've been a driving force in the ongoing growth of our already gargantuan federal government, and a major factor in government's increasing detachment from the priorities of individual Americans. Earmarks have also fueled the growth of the lobbying industry. Entire firms have been built around the practice. As more entities circumvent the normal competitive process, confidence in the system erodes, encouraging others to take the same shortcuts.

Many pork-barrel provisions are inserted into legislation at the last minute to ensure passage, and relatively few members get a chance to see them before actually voting. My Republican colleague, Jeff Flake of Arizona, has bold ideas to solve this problem. He proposes that the earmarking process be transparent: All earmarks should be included in the actual text of legislation, so members can see them before they vote. He believes, as I do, that this would make it much harder to adopt earmarks that can't be substantively justified, while also allowing earmarks that are legitimate. I think Mr. Flake is off to a strong start, and I support his efforts.

I'd like to go even further, though. Last week, in a letter to David Dreier, the House Rules Committee chairman and the speaker's point man on lobbying reform, I called for a ban on earmarks that serve lobbying interests at the expense of the public interest. We need to establish some clear standards by which worthy projects can be distinguished from worthless pork, so that pork projects can be halted in their tracks as soon as they are identified. For example, earmarks should meet the specific purpose of the authorizing statute. They should not give a private entity a competitive edge unless it is in the immediate national security interest of the country. They should not be a substitute for state and local fiscal responsibility. They should be used sparingly, and ideally, they should be a one-time appropriation for a specific national need.

his words are slippery and don't go nearly as far as the reformers would like， but it is an improvement and i have little doubt the pressure will force further adjustments。 there are also the likes of coburn's cog-jamming plans to keep the light coming should boehner prove less than honourable。

here is a similar statement from the reformers' choice， john shadegg。 although more pointed， it strikes me as pretty shallow and politically naive。 i don't think his coming third should be particularly surprising， nor do i think it is much to mourn about。

here is the statement from the business-as-usual candidate， roy blunt。 his statement makes no reference to corruption or pork， but is instead a stream of slimy self-congratulatory pap。 i think we can safely be glad that blunt only got second。

meanwhile， bush is also moving onto the anti-pork bandwagon and apparently promising to veto earmarks if give line-item veto powers：

I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. (Applause.) And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto. (Applause.)

so far only the words are moving， which is still better than them not moving： now we have their words to remind them of should they be foolish enough to try to bury the issue。