September 14, 2006

Blogometer PM Extra III

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: On Earmark, Get Set...Blog!

Bradford Plumer makes “The Liberal Case for Pork” at The New Republic:

…Is pork really that bad? Since the age of Jefferson, members of Congress have been earmarking money in spending bills for local projects that might not otherwise receive attention from federal agencies--and doing it to win votes back home. ... [T]here's a liberal case for supporting pork. It's not because pork projects are defensible on the merits, although they sometimes can be. It's not because they create jobs, although they can do that, too. Rather, it's because, without pork, activist government would wither and die.”

Reaction to Plumer’s perspective ranged widely. Some, like Captain Ed at the Quarters, were flummoxed by Plumer’s “incongruous” assertion: “His reasoning… will make your jaw drop.” Ed adds, “Plumer's argument amounts to an admission that the kind of big-government, intrusive spending that will come from perennial policy stands of progressives has no chance of succeeding through democratic means.” (Emphasis his.)

Ezra Klein at Tapped was more receptive. “[Plumer] explains that pork are bargaining chits that allow tough, controversial pieces of legislation to squeeze through the legislative process,” Klein writes. “I’ll buy that.” He adds, “I don't really have a problem with less than one percent of the federal budget going to infrastructure, cultural, and commemorative projects around the country. All of them create jobs, many of them are worthy on their own merits, and a fair fraction make the country a culturally richer and more distinctive place.”

Sunlight Foundation’s Ellen Miller rued that neither Blumer nor Klein “seem to really ‘get’ the problem with earmarks.” She continued, “It's not that earmarks are bad - it's that they are never subjected to scrutiny, that they are part of the underbelly of the Congressional process that never sees the light of day, that there's no opportunity for the public - much less Members of Congress - to evaluate them. It's fundamentally undemocratic for a single member of Congress to allocate money without scrutiny of his colleagues and the public. The process stinks.” Miller’s take attracted a most interesting reply, from Plumer himself: I do support more transparency, to a point … but whatever differences might exist, the article certainly wasn't intended as an attack on the Sunlight Foundation, and if it gave that impression, I apologize.”

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 14, 2006 06:08 AM