Promoted by Brendan

In my original post on the subject of "Bear DNA," I explained that Sen. McCain ridicules spending $3M on "Bear DNA," but:

- Sen. McCain voted in favor of the expenditure .

- It ain't $3M; it's $4.8M over the past 5 years , and the purpose of the $4.8M expenditure was to obtain actual scientific information about just how endangered grizzly bears are in northwestern Montana.

- The study showed that there are "2 1/2 times the number of bears previously estimated," and we can therefore revisit the regulations that impose $25,000 fines on farmers who mistakenly shoot grizzly bears or do so to protect their land.

I suggested that Sen. McCain, instead, ridicule $1,950,000 for the library and archives at the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at The City College of New York or $690M for the "Bud Shuster Highway" (named for former Congressman Bud Shuster, R-PA) that carries 10,000 vehicles/day back and forth from Altoona, PA on four lanes each way of I-99 (vs 170,000/day on the three-lane-each-way Capitol Beltway).

Red Wing replied:

<<900+ MILLION in earmarks in 3 years? Almost a BILLION DOLLARS in pet projects for Mr. Obama? That's like million bucks A DAY he was in office!
....Why no mention of that?>>

I didn't mention Sen. Obama's "pet projects" because I don't necessarily oppose "earmarks."

We're going to need to cut Federal government spending. To get there, we need broad agreement on working principles, not sound bites. My proposed principles:
- Is this expenditure in the national interest?
- If it's not in the short-term national interest, is it a national duty?
- If the answer to both questions is "no," then don't spend it.

Applying these principles to the $4.5M for "Bear DNA:"

(1) It is our national duty to protect "endangered species." Whether or not I can see a short-term national interest in our protecting grizzly bears from extinction (I do, personally, but then again, I drove through Yellowstone this summer with my son), I do think that the present generation of Americans has a duty to future Americans to not kill off all of the grizzly bears on our watch. And as long as we've got an Endangered Species Act on the books, we have a short-term duty, as well, in order to comply with our own laws.

(2) If the government must perform the long-term duty (or, at a minimum, comply with the law), then let the government make expenditures that are wisely conceived to achieve a definite and, if possible, measureable end.

(3) The bear DNA expenditure was designed to discover the actual population of grizzly bears in northwest Montana -- i.e., are they "endangered?" It achieved that end because it supplied an answer -- "not nearly as much as we thought."

Applying these principles, what would I cut (or consider cutting)?

(4) Probably the Charlie Rangel Center for Public Service: I recognize no national duty to glorify Charlie Rangel (or, if we do, why not just throw him a party? I'll bring the jellied salad), and I don't see a national interest that is advanced by the expenditure. Besides, given the events of the past few months , I'm not sure that anyone in the US could say the words "Charlie Rangel Center for Public Service" and keep a straight face. And, yes, I think it's fair to characterize this as an "earmark." (And it's probably too late to get this money back; but so is the "bear DNA" money).

(5) Probably the Bud Shuster I-99 4-lanes both ways to Altoona -- or at least cut back substantially on the scope of work and the price tag: Again, I don't recognize a national duty to enshrine Bud Shuster, and if there is a national duty (or national interest) to provide the good people of Altoona with Interstate access, it's hard for me to imagine that we couldn't fulfill that duty with 2 lanes each way instead of 4. Note: I'm not sure whether this technically qualifies as an "earmark," but it sure looks like a big fat waste of money.

(6) $10B/mo for Iraq: When I say "national interest," I mean within the 50 states of the USA. If our "national interest" in Iraq was about access to oil for us here in the 50 states, then the Iraq war doesn't seem to have advanced our national interest very much. And if we have a national duty in Iraq, it's purely self-inflicted (i.e., per Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule: "You break it, you bought it"). I think we need to stop spending money there as soon as possible, because it is not advancing an American interest to do so; and if we have/had a duty there, I just can't justify more Americans and Iraqis dying to fulfill that duty. Note: none of this money is an "earmark," but there sure has been a huge waste of money here.

(7) $1B for Georgia (former USSR): I know that
the Bush administration wants to send $1B to Georgia (former USSR). I honestly don't know whether either McCain or Obama have had to vote on this yet, and I hear all the rhetoric from both of them on this subject. I sure hope that neither of them is seriously suggesting that we're going to spend US blood there. I would not spend the $1B. I think we need it at home. I fail to see either a dutyor a national interest involved in rattling our sabers about, or spending billions on, Georgia. For cryin' out loud, Joseph Stalin was born there! We're going to go over there and fix everything?!? I'd like to see Georgia's democratic government survive, and I think it's fine for McCain and Obama to jawbone in favor of Georgia. But it is neither our duty nor in our country's interest to intervene militarily there, or to spend a whole lot of money there, either. And it's vitally important that we therefore stay out of that country before we break the "Pottery Barn" rule. Note: no "earmark" is involved here, either.

(8) Other overseas commitments: I would take a hard look at all of our overseas commitments. Why are we arming both Israel and Saudi Arabia? I guess their expenditures on weapons systems stimulate our defense industries here in the US, but is that really what we want to base our economy on (WWJD with that)? What about NATO - are any "North Atlantic" countries really at risk of attack from a foreign power at this time? How about all of our troops in Korea? Does North Korea really pose a risk to us here in the 50 states -- other than the troops that we have stationed there? And if those troops are threatened, then why are we spending money to keep them there in harm's way?

It is our duty -- to now and future Americans -- and it is in our national interest to focus in on taking care of business within our 50 states. It's clear that we're going to have to cut expenditures: and we're going to apply some good ol' American practicality and Yankee ingenuity toward performing our duties and acting in the best interest of our country.

Now, as to Obama: what is the nature of his "pet projects?" How do they stand up under the foregoing analysis?

And, for that matter, I can't imagine that John McCain has served in the Senate as long as he has without bringin' home a little bacon for the folks in Arizona. What is the nature of his "pet projects?" How do they stand up under the foregoing analysis?

I used to like John McCain. If he had won the nomination in 2000 and faced Gore, I probably would have voted for him (it would have been a closer call for me if Bill Bradley had made a better showing against Gore). But he gets so much stuff wrong in his approach to this "bear DNA" issue (i.e., he's wrong about how much was spent, he's wrong about what it was spent for, he's wrong that it was wasted money, and he's even wrong about how he voted on it) that, if this "bear DNA" issue reflects his overall approach to government spending, then I would have to vote against him: it would be my duty to the nation :)

Dave