I don't have to be consistent. I'm not a consistency fetishist. Never have been. I like thinking things over and changing my mind if compelling new evidence comes to light.
You miss the point, though. I'm talking about definitions. Pork is very malleable. "Pork" is only pork when it's being spent somewhere else.
Take a look at Senator Inhofe, screaming about how the entire defense budget is being gutted and how America is being put at risk when, in fact, the overall defense budget is being increased. Look a little further, and you'll see one of the cuts in the new defense budget is an expensive "weapons of the future" program that's being developed in his state. Some people might call that spending pork. I might look at the budget and project realignment that Secy. Gates is proposing and think as a whole it's actually increasing Defense's readiness.
Say we've got a sewer project that we haven't got the money to fix locally, and our rep is looking for a few million out of the federal budget to make up the difference. Is that pork? The folks who have screwed up sewers and who are paying local, state and federal taxes probably don't think so. The folks in Oklahoma who want that big weapons program might have a different opinion.
I feel comfortable being conflicted about the bail-outs. Really, I do. Part of me would love to see GM and Chrysler and AIG go under, and see their management suffer for their screw-ups. Part of me looks back at the Chrysler and S&L bail-outs which were expensive but produced a net profit for the government in the end, and thinks it's not all that bad. Part of me looks at what would happen if Chrysler and GM do fail, and thinks not just of all the skilled union jobs in the Midwest that will be lost, but also all the skilled at-will jobs that would be lost around the country when the dealership networks fall down with it (in interest of full disclosure, none of my mechanic or car-sales friends work for Chrysler or GM dealerships).
I also feel comfortable criticizing the tea party movement. There may be some real grassroots upwelling there, but it's been heavily astroturfed by Dick Armey's lobbying/consulting business and Fox News and exploited by GOP speakers (who, I hear, were booed at some events by the tea partiers for their hijack attempts) to get a boost for the party. I hear a lot about how this was the conservative movement's (or the Republican's, depending on reportage) great embracing of the internet to catch up to the Obama campaign's online prowess, but I don't see that in the results. They aimed high, going for a strong symbol of American history, but they didn't figure out how to translate it effectively to their issue. Hell, they embraced "teabagging" and then wondered why people laughed.
no subject
You miss the point, though. I'm talking about definitions. Pork is very malleable. "Pork" is only pork when it's being spent somewhere else.
Take a look at Senator Inhofe, screaming about how the entire defense budget is being gutted and how America is being put at risk when, in fact, the overall defense budget is being increased. Look a little further, and you'll see one of the cuts in the new defense budget is an expensive "weapons of the future" program that's being developed in his state. Some people might call that spending pork. I might look at the budget and project realignment that Secy. Gates is proposing and think as a whole it's actually increasing Defense's readiness.
Say we've got a sewer project that we haven't got the money to fix locally, and our rep is looking for a few million out of the federal budget to make up the difference. Is that pork? The folks who have screwed up sewers and who are paying local, state and federal taxes probably don't think so. The folks in Oklahoma who want that big weapons program might have a different opinion.
I feel comfortable being conflicted about the bail-outs. Really, I do. Part of me would love to see GM and Chrysler and AIG go under, and see their management suffer for their screw-ups. Part of me looks back at the Chrysler and S&L bail-outs which were expensive but produced a net profit for the government in the end, and thinks it's not all that bad. Part of me looks at what would happen if Chrysler and GM do fail, and thinks not just of all the skilled union jobs in the Midwest that will be lost, but also all the skilled at-will jobs that would be lost around the country when the dealership networks fall down with it (in interest of full disclosure, none of my mechanic or car-sales friends work for Chrysler or GM dealerships).
I also feel comfortable criticizing the tea party movement. There may be some real grassroots upwelling there, but it's been heavily astroturfed by Dick Armey's lobbying/consulting business and Fox News and exploited by GOP speakers (who, I hear, were booed at some events by the tea partiers for their hijack attempts) to get a boost for the party. I hear a lot about how this was the conservative movement's (or the Republican's, depending on reportage) great embracing of the internet to catch up to the Obama campaign's online prowess, but I don't see that in the results. They aimed high, going for a strong symbol of American history, but they didn't figure out how to translate it effectively to their issue. Hell, they embraced "teabagging" and then wondered why people laughed.