The 2007 RePork Card
As fascinating as Henry "Goatsie" Reynolds is, we should get back to actual policy -- and thankfully, the Club for Growth has given us a good reason to do so. Earlier today, they released their RePork Card for Congress, evaluating the members based on their votes on anti-pork legislation. Overall, both parties failed, but one failed spectacularly. Want to guess which one?
Even though the Democratic majority vowed to return Congress to a path of fiscal responsibility, the 2008 appropriations bills were stuffed with wasteful pork projects. While Representatives John Campbell, Jeff Flake, Jeb Hensarling, Scott Garrett, and David Obey (1 amendment) offered 50 amendments to strip outrageous pork projects from the appropriations bills, only one amendment, offered by Rep. Jeff Flake, passed.The Club for Growth has compiled a RePORK Card of all members' votes on all 50 anti-pork amendments (see below). "Taxpayers have a right to know which congressmen stand up for them and which stand up for the special interests," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "Unfortunately, the Club for Growth RePORK Card shows that most congressmen care more about lining their buddies' pockets than they care about protecting American taxpayers."
Some interesting numbers to consider:
* Sixteen congressmen scored a perfect 100%, voting for all 50 anti-pork amendments. They are all Republicans.
* The average Republican score was 43%. The average Democratic score was 2%.
* The average score for appropriators was 4%. The average score for non-appropriators was 25%.
* Kudos to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) who scored an admirable 98%-the only Democrat to score above 20%.
* Rep. David Obey (D-WI) did not vote for his own amendment to strike all earmarks in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Rep. Obey scored an embarrassing 0% overall.
* 105 congressmen scored an embarrassing 0%, voting against every single amendment. The Pork Hall of Shame includes 81 Democrats and 24 Republicans.
* The Democratic Freshmen scored an abysmal average score of 2%. Their Republican counterparts scored an average score of 78%.
Which party do you think got the message in 2006? It wasn't the Democrats, whose freshman class couldn't wait to get in and start protecting their incumbencies. While the Republicans failed overall, at least the few GOP freshmen got a B-.
Check out how long one has to scroll down the list before getting to the second-best Democrat on pork. It's Hastings of Washington, at 22%[see update below]. (By the way, Ron Paul only scores 11 places above Hastings, at 29%.) John Kline, my Congressman, scored 100%, voting against pork 50 out of 50 times. The former Marine has hung tough against pork, and his constituents appreciate it.
Kudos to the Club for staying in the fight, too. This will help identify the pork addicts, even if it isn't shaming them yet.
UPDATE: I was wrong about the second-best Democrat. Hastings is actually a Republican; the second-best Democrat is Barrow of Georgia, four places below Hastings at 20%. Thanks to CQ reader Roger M for the correction.
UPDATE II: Forgot to hat-tip Gregg at Impacted Wisdom Truth for letting me know about by missing bold tag.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on August 9, 2007 5:22 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (13)
Posted by Shoprat | August 9, 2007 6:01 PM
This is all very interesting and enlightening, but the MSM will make every effort to keep the average American voter from seeing this. If it doesn't help the Democrats the MSM fails to see the relevance.
Posted by bayam | August 9, 2007 6:10 PM
Kicking out the bums of one party for the bums of another party didn't seem to be very effective.
I'm starting to think that it's going to take a President championing the cause of reform to change the Congress. Congress seems to be incapable of reforming itself.
Posted by Shaprshooter | August 9, 2007 7:38 PM
As Thomas Sowell said, "It CAN get worse".
Posted by Joanne | August 9, 2007 8:37 PM
Perhaps somebody creative should produce some "oink" political ads on YouTube. Set a theme and methodically go down the list pillorying the oinkers.
{^_-}
Posted by Rovin | August 9, 2007 9:36 PM
Bayam, this is one of the most thoughtful comments I have ever read from you. Are you feeling ok? Right on both counts, but "effective" just doesn't seem to be the flavor of the day for either side.
Pork-side economics has been the normal mode of taxpayer dollar allocations for the better part of 50-plus years-----and it won't change overnight by either side untill they find an alternative. The best we can do is make the proceedure more transparent and therefore scrutinized. We've been waiting up here in NorCal for a 20 mile bypass for over 30 years. Pork? Maybe. But its not a bridge to an island. The sqeaky wheel comes to mind.
Posted by Teresa | August 9, 2007 11:00 PM
How do these numbers compare to last year's numbers? I'd be curious to see if they were reversed -- in other words, does the party in power have the ability to block the minority power's pork? Apparently some Republican pork is still getting through so power is no absolute, but it would be interesting to compare and contrast how fiscal responsibility corelates with ability to muster votes.
Posted by docjim505 | August 10, 2007 2:55 AM
I also wonder what the numbers looked like before that dark, dark day when the dems took control of the Congress. Were they still the worst porkers? Or is this a dubious "perk" that goes along with being in the majority? With Ted Stevens and Trent Lott in our party, it's hard to be too virtuous about the GOP's record on pork.
I love this:
Rep. David Obey (D-WI) did not vote for his own amendment to strike all earmarks in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
Somehow, I don't think his vote will become a part of his reelection campaign, even assuming his challenger(s) bring up the subject of pork. Instead, it'll be "I am adamantly against pork barrel! Why, I proposed an amendment to strip pork from the Labor-HHS Bill..." This is how politicians play the game.
Anyway, let's face facts: one man's porkbarrel is another man's "vital appropriation for the good of his constituency". Thanks to decades of bloated government spending and increasing control by Washington of almost every facet of our lives, we're all accustomed to - nay, DEMAND - lots of government spending in our own interests. Congressmen, knowing that their constituents vote in part based on how well the bring home the bacon, are only too happy to shovel as much money at us as they can.
Before we try to reform the Congress, we really need to reform the American people. Just say "no" to pork, anybody?
Posted by swabjockey05 | August 10, 2007 5:44 AM
Doc J,
While a agree with you on the point about the American people needing to change (notwithstanding the trolls bs)...it is more on the shoulders of the elected officials...THEY are the ones who took the "oath". The same oath I took. One of the burdens of good leadership (and honorable behavior) is that to do the "right" thing is not always popular. But you do it because it is "right".
What ever happened to "honor"?
Used to be that without it you couldn't get elected.
Posted by docjim505 | August 10, 2007 6:18 AM
swabjockey,
I think honor pretty much went out when President Washington left office, though it has showed up from time to time since then. The shameless conduct of that disgraceful pack of liars, thieves, and wardheelers we call "Congress" dates to the very founding of our republic. I recall reading that, early in his first term, President Washington went down to Congress to discuss some legislation on the floor. He was so utterly disgusted with the grasping, petty, and self-aggrandizing behavior of the representatives and senators that he stalked out muttering, "I'll be DAMNED if I ever come back to this place again," setting the precedent that the president only rarely goes down to Capitol Hill.
Expecting a member of Congress to behave with honor - hell, expecting them NOT to behave in ways that are selfish, perverted or outright criminal - is like expecting honest dealings from a used car salesman(*). Since we can't expect diligent, ethical, and selfless behavior from our members of Congress, it falls to we the people to keep a close eye on them and make it clear that we want clean, efficient government and will punish those who don't give us what we want.
Unfortuntely, people tend to think that every member of Congress is bad... except THEIR members, mostly because Congressman Twiddle or Senator Foghorn straightened out their sweet Aunt Sally's Social Security check, or got 'em a passport, or provided some other shortcut through the byzantine federal bureaucratic system. And, so, that pack of courthouse loafers and perverts has a reelection rate of something like 90%+. Whose fault is it that we foolishly keep sending sleazebags like Kennedy, porkers like Lott, and idiots like Pelosi back to Capitol Hill to continue their bumbling, corrupt, and spineless management of our government? When you give a thief the keys to your house and the PIN number to your bank account, don't be surprised when he steal you blind.
Bah. A pox on all of them.
--------
(*) I apologize to used car salesmen for comparing them to members of Congress.
Posted by swabjockey05 | August 10, 2007 7:04 AM
Thanks a lot.
Posted by Teresa | August 10, 2007 7:51 AM
I agree with DocJim when he writes:
"Anyway, let's face facts: one man's porkbarrel is another man's "vital appropriation for the good of his constituency". '
_____________________
That's the problem. They just passed a new bill that congress people have to be identified on these pork projects. How is that going to help? They want credit in their districts for bringing in the dough. Do you want to be on the list of congressmen least likely to bring back federal dollars to your district? I can see the campaign ads now.
Posted by docjim505 | August 10, 2007 8:47 AM
Teresa wrote (August 10, 2007 7:51 AM):
Do you want to be on the list of congressmen least likely to bring back federal dollars to your district? I can see the campaign ads now.
I must say that I hadn't considered it from this angle. However, this excellent point simply underscores my original argument, i.e. that the best way to reform this system is to reform the American people. As long as people think of their congressman as nothing more than a bagman delivering money from DC to them, the porkbarrel system will get worse and worse. I'd like to think we can get to the point where people think of the federal government much as they did 100 years ago: "Keep the country safe, deliver the mail, build roads, and otherwise leave us the hell alone."
Posted by Halffasthero | August 10, 2007 9:07 AM
"I'd like to think we can get to the point where people think of the federal government much as they did 100 years ago: "Keep the country safe, deliver the mail, build roads, and otherwise leave us the hell alone."
"
&
"Bah. A pox on all of them."
Hear! Hear! Neither party is clean. if either party did what their campain supplments said they would do, then ultimately I would not have a problem with either of them. They would both move the country forward in one form or another, but they don't. I could get nasty here and give my full opinion of the state of what they currently represent but that has been done very well here and on other blogs.