MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Lindsey Graham is causing trouble again. He wants money for a study on dredging of the Port of Charleston. This would be called Pork, I would guess. Pork Barrel spending has gotten a bad rap and for good reason.
The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. In the popular 1863 story "The Children of the Public", Edward Everett Hale used the term pork barrel as a homely metaphor for any form of public spending to the citizenry.[2] After the American Civil War, however, the term came to be used in a derogatory sense. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the modern sense of the term from 1873.[3] By the 1870s, references to "pork" were common in Congress, and the term was further popularized by a 1919 article by Chester Collins Maxey in the National Municipal Review, which reported on certain legislative acts known to members of Congress as "pork barrel bills". He claimed that the phrase originated in a pre-Civil War practice of giving slaves a barrel of salt pork as a reward and requiring them to compete among themselves to get their share of the handout.[4] More generally, a barrel of salt pork was a common larder item in 19th century households, and could be used as a measure of the family's financial well-being. For example, in his 1845 novel The Chainbearer, James Fenimore Cooper wrote, "I hold a family to be in a desperate way, when the mother can see the bottom of the pork barrel."[5]
It was too often associated with kick backs and vote buying among other things. And would far to often be used to fund unnecessary projects just to line the pockets of some campaign contributor. And every election cycle some member of congress that was up for reelection or some one wanting to be elected would promise to eliminate all this Pork from the Federal Budget. But of course they wouldn't and this is a good thing.
With out these earmarks, a lot of the big important bills would not have gotten passed. That is how it use to work. Wheeling and dealing on the side over earmark legislation and/or amendments was how you got the votes for the big important bills like civil rights and equal opportunity and all the others. It's how you would form relationships with other Senators and Congressman. And more importantly it was how you got funds for projects in your state. And this is why we have the type of representative government we have. And the president and vice president are supposed to be there to help direct this.
Lord knows I would never want a Lindsey Graham for president. But I sure would want some one like him as my Senator to fight for what I though we needed in my state.
We have however been electing more and more people not because they would make a good representative of our state or district but instead based purely on some ideological agenda we want them to push. Is it any wonder then that nothing gets done? That infrastructure gets ignored? And both sides do this. Though the republicans have been more blatant and bellicose about it.
So give me some one who will represent my needs and those of my community rather than some pie in the sky ideology.
Comments
Yay...I'm no longer blue. I could not un blue me. Thanks.
by cmaukonen on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:06pm
It's not easy being blue. There was a bug in the stylesheet. Fixed now.
And thanks for using Arial. Makes my life easier.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:17pm
An interesting thought about the unintended consequences of earmark reform.
Incidentally, the phenomenon you describe goes back a ways. Newt Gingrich deliberately nationalized legislative politics in1994, turning every House and Senate election into a referendum on Bill (and Hillary) Clinton. It worked.
Since then, this strategy has become the norm. Democratic legislative candidates ran against W. Republicans ran against Obama. Sharron Angle raised a ton of money out of state because she made her campaign a national crusade against Harry Reid rather than presenting herself as the best person to represant Nevada.
Tip O'Neill used to say that all politics is local, but it's just not true anymore.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:14pm
sigh...and the locals take it in the shorts.
by cmaukonen on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:32pm
I think it may go back even further to the 1968 election and a referendum on the Vietnam War and civil rights etc. But that maybe a stretch.
by cmaukonen on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:38pm
Looking at a list of potential Republican candidates today, I thought it might be a good idea to abandon primariies and go back to the smoke-filled room selection of party candidates.
by EmmaZahn on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:59am
I've been thinking that for quite sometime. The Party Boss system was corrupt to say the least but I can't help thinking we threw the baby out with the bath water when we abandoned it. And as has been mentioned by more than a few, It was very responsive to local needs. That's how they got the votes for their candidates.
Instead we should have cleaned it up.
by cmaukonen on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 9:41am
I need to make some arguments in favor of the old smoke filled room method that Emma alludes to.
For one thing candidates were pretty well vetted by this approach. You had to be pretty squeaky clean to be selected. No skeletons around.
You personal wealth generally did not enter into it too much especially if you did not hold to the party line (locally).
Most new candidates did not get a crack at congress right off, generally they would be initially selected for some local position. Then and only then if they won and served there the state and then congress. Yes this did inhibit new blood but it also kept a lot of whack jobs out as well. I can only remember one totally off the wall clown and that was McCarthy.
So it did have a lot of advantages.
by cmaukonen on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 11:18am
Remember that interstate highway system that got built in the 1950s? It got built during a time of fairly bellicose politics, with representatives of both parties rallying to censor everything from comic books to Bettie Page and search for communists in every line of government. John Birch Society, Comics Code Authority, all of that was during the 1950s.
So crazy politics shouldn't necessarily be an excuse for things not happening. It's going to take alot to reinvigorate American infrastructure but it can be done and it's got to start where it's needed most - low income suburbs where people have to rely on cars they can barely afford to pay for, bridges over areas like the Colombia River that are adequate at best and in need of repairs, cities like Minneapolis where bridges have actually collapsed.
by Orion on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 5:34am
If memory serves me correctly, everyone was searching for communists under rocks. Democrats as well as republicans. They just could not agree on which rocks or how to excavate them.
by cmaukonen on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 9:43am
We definitely need a better way to pick our representatives as well as presidential nominations. I came across this piece politics daily. And though I don't agree with his example, he does bring up a good point.
That the current system gives far too much power to those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. Something that the old boss system used to keep in check.
And as Genghis pointed out above, it also allows monied interests from out of state to influence state and local politics. If we want the money out of Washington, we need to first get it out of Ohio or Oregon. I am not sure the solution that the piece I sited above would do this but a much better filter is needed. A way to vet candidates and keep local politics local.
by cmaukonen on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 2:38pm