Story originally printed in the La Crosse Tribune or online at www.lacrossetribune.com
Published - Sunday, May 11, 2008
Pork ban doesn’t go far enough
Our 3rd District U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, has recently announced and sent e-mails out letting everyone know that he has decided, on his own, to not sponsor any “earmark” (better known as pork barrel) legislation for one entire calender year.
Doesn’t that just make you proud to have him as your representative. News flash for Ron Kind: We want a total ban on pork. Pork barrel legislation, or “earmarks,” is legalized campaign spending to benefit the incumbents, created by incumbents, for which opponents cannot claim.
Earmarks are added to bills by legislators, usually for the federal government to spend money for some local area (3rd District) for some project (river and harbor improvements, museums for railroads, bridges to nowhere, monument to mosquitoes, etc) to bring federal dollars into the local economy, and the legislator (Ron Kind) can thus claim, during election time, that people should vote for him, because he has proven his effectiveness as their elected official.
This pork or earmark is added to bills that are expected to be signed by the president, and forces him to either veto the entire bill, or accept the stinking, rotten pork. He usually accepts it.
If a legislator feels a local project is important, he should write the bill and have it go through the law-making process on its own merits and make it also subject to a presidential veto.
All stories copyright 2000 - 2006 La Crosse Tribune and other attributed sources.