ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Getting The Pigs Out Of The Water - Part 2

Updated on September 9, 2013

I revert back to the old West Virginia hill billy saying I opened up the first part of this article yesterday with in case you missed it, "You can't get the water to clear up until you get the pigs out of the water." Not only did they wallow once in the amendment water as witnessed in Part 1 but they had a chance to prove their porcine proclivities a second time that very day using that very same bill - The Stock Act - as the vessel. If you're scratching your noggin and wondering what that is then breeze back to Part 1 and take a gander. You really need to read Part 1 before reading this so you can tie the two pig tails together. For your convenience I've placed that link right below this sentence.

The day the "Do Nothing" democratically controlled Senate was wallowing in the cesspool that the US Senate has become another amendment was presented by Senator Pat Toomey from Pennyslvania. He's another Senator I happen to think actually has a thinking brain in his head. All the talk out of our pick pocket, career politicians seems to be that "Washington DC needs to be reformed." Oh really? I happen to agree with that statement but it does appear that the current pigs wallowing there in the water turning it into more of a cesspool than it already is don't have the inclination, nor the gumption, to do just that, There are differing rationales used to justify their porkish ways but the arguments are as stale as most of them seem to be.

The second amendment to the STOCK Act, offered up by Senator Toomey, had to do with their precious pork barrel projects commonly known as "taking the bacon home." I buy mine at the supermarket so they really don't need to bother with that. Being a 10th Amendment sort of fellow, I'd rather they return any money to the states and let us allocate it where it is needed down at that level and below. Boy wouldn't that get the lobbyists and special interest group types shorts in a wad?

Toomey's amendment would have permanently banned the practice of earmarking. A while back both the House and Senate agreed to a one year moratorium on pork barreling but fell short on the vote to make it permanent. There was a public outcry about earmarks so they slapped a band aid on it knowing the public has a short memory span of usually about a year, then it's back to Dancing With The Stars and American Idol. The vote on that amendment sent the ban down in flames once again by a vote of 40-59. There were 46 Democrats and 13 Republicans who opposed not being able to continue to waste our tax dollars. So you see they don't want to have to step down from office at a decent interval so they can continue to feed themselves, their flock and their special interest buddies who fatten up their reelection campaign coffers. Makes perfect sense to them but maybe not to us. You can see how your Senators voted on that amendment at the link below.

Since your attention span is supposedly one year long, this November if your favorite Senator is up for reelection try to use some form of memory jog about how he/she voted. Just think about swine as you enter the polling place this year. Works for me!

Do you realize that there are people we have sent up there to protect our tax dollars who believe it is their right to dip into the pork barrel? Here's part of their stinkin' thinkin' to justify a practice the American public finds out of favor. Lets invoke the US Constitution here which they rarely do unless it suits their needs. The Constitution does give Congress "the power of the purse." How that power gets skewed, misused and abused isn't addressed in that document, we leave that up to the pick pockets themselves. Here's how it really works.

Seniority and campaign contributions usually pull those purse strings about who gets what, for what and when. There's another argument for term limits. Ever wonder why the federal bureaucracy is so bloated? Don't! It takes layers of bureaucrats to administer the pork. So on top of getting to pay for the pork we also get to pay more piglets. Think about what I said about the 10th Amendment as you think. This gets to be a vicious circle when they're talking about our money, not theirs.

Another argument is advanced about the "merit" of pork. I prefer mine well done myself. The line of thinking there is that they keep the "good ones" and get rid of the "bad ones." I'm sure that will work. Again the marsh mice and Pelosi just danced through my head. In most households a good mouse is a dead mouse. It's a known "insider" fact that if you vote against someone's superfluous pork project in committee the committee chairperson will then take away your pet projects. You scratch my pork, I'll scratch yours sort of thing. That's how Washington DC really works. Why do you think those larger than life, debt ridden Omnibus bills full of pork keep getting passed?

So looking at the vote and the way it went down, Toomey's amendment could have easily passed except that many RINO's in the US Senate wanted to continue to feed their addiction to pork. Sad but true...

Time To Remember In November

There is a saving grace in this however. The Senate Finance Committe agreed to extend the moratorium for another year. That's just long enough to get them past the coming election. And you think Washinton DC doesn't need a thorough house cleaning with a bristle broom? Think again

Now I know there are readers here who don't like The Old Frog Prince to keep telling the truth. But you know what? Too bad, so sad...

As Always,

The Frog Prince


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Stu 5 years ago

      Hi Frog,

      Sadly, nobody has ever figured out how to prevent societies of any type from becoming plutocratic over time. I admit term limites will help, but no "rules" can really stop it. Campaign finance and other types of rules can be intentionally created with loopholes, or ignored by donors and recipients.

      I think the best solution, although difficult to obtain, is to attack the "supply side" directly. Earmarks can't be purchased or bestowed if the federal government doesn't have the cash or borrowing permission to finance them. This is a tall order, but actually solving this problem would require putting Congress on a crash diet:

      (1) Defund/vacate all laws/regulations/agencies/EO's that don't comport with a "Borkian" interpretation of Article 1, Section 8.

      (2) Break the public unions, and end monopoly unionization, with the goal of reducing federal worker compensation to private level equivalents.

      (3) Strictly limit total government spending to a figure that implements (1) and (2), plus NOTHING extra.

      Government would have to close the pork machine, because otherwise it would not have enough cash to fulfill its true affirmative duties under the Necessary and Proper Clause, leading to class action suits in federal court.

      In George Washington's day, federal spending was only 2% of GNP, and he ran a balanced budget. Today, official spending, completely ignoring off balance sheet spending, is 25% of GNP, 40% of it borrowed. I thought growth LOWERS overhead as a percentage of "operations" (GNP in this case) due to economies of scale. How come official spending isn't 1% of GNP? Or 25 basis points? And with no deficit? It's simply because of federal power stealing from the states and people - these stolen powers must be enforced, and there is no cost discipline in this enforcement because of the federal government's ability to borrow trillions, as well as print cash (don't worry about future inflation - the federal workers are overpaid enough to handle it).

      Ultimately, we need Constitutional Amendments to curb overall government spending, because Congress won't do it of their own accord. I know it's messy, but a Constitutional Convention may be our only option. A traditional Constitutional Amendment requires 2/3 supermajorities in both federal Houses to proceed to the states for ratification; I can't picture the federal Congress voting for a Constitutional Amendment that conflicts with their perpetual overspending in conventional legislation. The only solution is for the states to shove the fix down their greedy little throats.


    • drbj profile image

      drbj and sherry 5 years ago from south Florida

      Jim - Those pigs will never leave the D.C. pool on their own. It's Paradise to them. Voting them out is our only recourse.

    • tamarawilhite profile image

      Tamara Wilhite 5 years ago from Fort Worth, Texas

      Great article, I voted it up. While many people wonder about the difference a President makes, we need to remember how many recent Supreme Court decisions (Kelo, Citizen's United) were decided by just one vote - and that several justices are in their 70s. If nothing else, a mediocre Republican is still better than Obama with four years to appoint another Kagan.

    • profile image

      Pat Potts 5 years ago

      Love this Frog. Thanks for making me smile......

    • American Romance profile image

      American Romance 5 years ago from America

      your no longer a frog prince but a gripy old toad! LOL! you know I love this! voted up!

    • The Frog Prince profile image

      The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

      BPOP Being in the business I'm in, I just happen to have a power washer out in my work shop. Interesting thought.

      The Frog

    • breakfastpop profile image

      breakfastpop 5 years ago

      Washington needs more than a bristle broom. It needs a power washer! Great hub. Up interesting, useful and awesome.