Earmarks (formerly known as Pork Barrel Spending) are a Bad Thing

Nebraska Congressman Lee Terry (R-1st district, Omaha and surrounding area) thinks we are spending too much on "earmarked" appropriations in the coming spending bills. During the GOP domination, earmarks pork spending was de rigeur. The Democrats have reduced it by 25%. But Terry thinks that's still too much, and being spent on stupid things including a "hippie museum to Woodstock." (1)

Of course this has always been Terry's position on pork spending. Hasn't it? As Al Smith said, "Let's look at the record:"

In his ad [a radio ad run on local stations and paid for with campaign funds], paid for with campaign funds, Terry poked fun at several items approved this year, such as $70 million for peanut storage and $20 million for cricket eradication. With a chuckle, he said, "They even wanted to spend your tax dollars on a hippie museum at Woodstock."

"Incredibly," Terry continued, "we see tens of thousands of requests like these. . . . That's why I voted over 50 times to eliminate an earmark and have been a leader in Congress making sure earmarks are transparent, publicly debated and forced to several votes."

Terry acknowledged that, in years past, he wasn't shy about seeking earmarks for his Omaha-centered district. In addition, since he was first elected in 1998, he has voted dozens of times for spending bills that included his and other lawmakers' earmarks.

Terry made no earmark requests this year. He expressed concern about new House ethics rules that require lawmakers to certify that they have no financial interest in a specific earmark.

Omaha World Herald Feb. 26, 2007.

Now of course this raises a couple of questions:

1) How come earmarks were fine with Lee prior to the Democratic takeover, but not fine now? (The answer, of course, is that earmarks are okay in the first person, but not okay in the second, as in "My earmarks will benefit my constituency," but "Your earmarks are highway robbery.")

2) This little snippet may have snuck past you, but look at it again: "[Terry] expressed concern about new House ethics rules that require lawmakers to certify that they have no financial interest in a specific earmark."

You mean Lee Terry is nervous about running afoul of ethics rules that require him to certify that he has no financial interest in a pork amendment for Omaha? Now why would that be? Of course the innocent interpretation is that Terry, as a resident of the district, would benefit from any pork spending in his district.

That's one possibility. The other is that somehow he himself was benefiting directly or indirectly from the pork spending. To be fair, Lee is an attorney and former member of various Omaha governmental bodies, so it's not like he has a construction business which would make Big Bucks for building the Omaha Meatpackers Museum (I made that up). And, of course, a citizen is innocent until proven guilty. But Lee Terry isn't a citizen. He's a congressman. And when a congressman shies at certifying he has no conflict of interest, I have to ask questions.

What's the problem with stating you'll play by the rules, Lee?
====================================
(1) So will this museum have a genuine vintage bong?