Posted on 11/24/2004 8:31:54 AM PST by nj26
Deep in the transportation section of this year’s omnibus spending bill, Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) dispensed a little appropriator’s justice, punishing 21 Republicans who wrote him a letter in support of $1.8 billion for Amtrak.
Istook, chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies, drastically reduced, or entirely excised, the transportation earmarks that those lawmakers were expecting to receive, making good on a little-noticed threat he issued in a letter last February.
Istook’s anti-Amtrak retribution hit several of the Republican majority’s most vulnerable members, including Reps. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) and Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), two Northeastern centrists who won tight races, in part, by convincing constituents of their ability to bring home road money.
The affected lawmakers did not learn of Istook’s drastic action until last Saturday, when the bill was passed. Several of them contacted Republican leaders to inquire if they knew of Istook’s punitive action and were told that party leaders were unaware that Istook was harming vulnerable members.
(Excerpt) Read more at hillnews.com ...
This is his second controversy of the week.
And, not to sound provincial, but New Jersey and Connecticut are the highest income states in the country, and send a lot more to the Federal Government than we get back. I just don't think our road projects should be eliminated in retribution for supporting Amtrak. It would be like eliminating road projects for Iowa in response to their requests for farm subsidies. Cut Amtrak, cut the farm subsidies, but save the retribution for Democrats, not other Republicans in swing districts.
I am unclear, is that an argument for preserving out-of-control gov't spending?
Amtrack is nothing but a huge boondoogle for politicians. I say Right On, Mr. Istook! If this country needs a railway, the private sector should build it.
Lately, I haven't heard too many Republicans making that argument. I have heard alot of loonie leftists like Lawrence O'Donnell making that argument. Maybe, instead of demanding your money back in the form of increased gov't spending, a more productive, conservative approach would be to demand that the 'progressive' nature of tax code be revised by cutting marginal rates for high-income earners.
"I am unclear, is that an argument for preserving out-of-control gov't spending?"
It's an argument for some party discipline. This is the same guy that inserted that tax snooping clause in the appropriations bill, which Bill Frist immediately condemned, and the controversy has been all over the media.
It's one thing to cut spending. It is another thing to make a fool of fellow Republicans. Many of these Congressmen have done us a favor by holding onto districts that were carried by John Kerry and Al Gore. And the elections are often close. For example, Gerlach (R-PA) won with 51% of the vote in the recent election. Simmons (R-CT) is another GOP incumbent in a Democratic district.
There's being principled, and there's shooting yourself in the foot in the process.
Istook made a mistake, too many Republicans are on the Northeast corridor and they won't let this stand.
Is it possible that Istook is doing the right thing by reigning in gov't spending? Or is that an argument that you just don't get too excited about?
"Is it possible that Istook is doing the right thing by reigning in gov't spending?"
Sure, if he cut the pork-barrel spending in EVERY congressional district, he would be doing the right thing.
But, this seems to be about retribution against other Republicans, rather than smaller government. Otherwise, why target only these districts?
" It would be like eliminating road projects for Iowa in response to their requests for farm subsidies."
I'm trying to figure out why that would be a bad thing. There is only so much money to go around.
Istook sent out a memo asking the members to prioritize the money for their districts. Those members made Amtrak their priority.
He asked them what they wanted to do. They told him Amtrak. End of story.
I see liberals all the time making variants of that argument that "Unless you are going to do something everywhere, you shouldn't do it anywhere." A classic of that type of argument is the argument the left makes that unless we are willing to get rid of every dictator, we shouldn't get rid of any particular dictator like Hussein.
Wouldn't you agree that that type of argument is really an intellectually dishonest dodge. What you are really saying when you say that is that you don't want any cuts in spending. Isn't that the case?
This seems to be about personal retribution to me. That is the point of the article, and I think that making it an argument about "smaller government" is a diversion.
You don't think there was any personal retribution involved? It just happened to be that all the wasteful road projects were in these 21 districts.
It seems to me that the when representatives did not prioritize their desires as asked, they are to fault -- if there is fault. He can't represent all districts. When he asks for input, he shouldn't be ignored.
Frankly, I think that he is "spot on."
Gwjack
Some of the projects that were funded in the bill:
$300,000 to save the Pennsylvania home of politician Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg
$1.5 million to establish an archive for Dick Gephardt
$443,000 for research to develop "baby food containing salmon"
$4 million for "shrimp aquaculture"
$133,000 for maple research in Vermont
$500,000 for a history museum in Waterloo, Iowa
$500,000 for the NY Botanical Garden
$3 million for research on the genetics of grapes
Give me a break. I live in one of these 21 districts, so maybe I am just thinking of myself, but I'll be remembering the shrimp aquaculture every time I hit a pothole.
Me too as I consider the genetics of the grapes in the bottle of wine I just finished...(hic)...
Your representative chose to prioritize Amtrak over roads. Think about that every time you hit a pothole.
There's nothing personal about it.
Istook made it clear that if reps wanted Amtrak funding it would count as part or all of their transportation allotment. The reps went ahead and chose Amtrak and their only defense is that they "didn't believe" Istook would follow through. Well, he's on honest guy, and he followed through.
The reps got most of the Amtrak funding they wanted and lost most of the other projects they wanted. Sounds fair to me!
"There's nothing personal about it.
Istook made it clear that if reps wanted Amtrak funding it would count as part or all of their transportation allotment. The reps went ahead and chose Amtrak and their only defense is that they "didn't believe" Istook would follow through. Well, he's on honest guy, and he followed through.
The reps got most of the Amtrak funding they wanted and lost most of the other projects they wanted. Sounds fair to me!"
That is a blatant lie. Many of these districts don't have ANY Amtrak service. For example, Amtrak doesn't serve the 5th district (Scott Garrett, R) of New Jersey. The nearest stop is in Newark, which is 20-30 miles away. Likewise, it doesn't serve the 2nd district of New Jersey (LoBiondo, R)
These lawmakers signed a letter supporting Amtrak as a matter of ideology, and now are being punished for it. They didn't submit any "transportation prioritization" list for their districts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.