Legerdemain
By Mitch Berg
Last Saturday, whilst appearing as a guest on Marty Owings’ internet talkradio show “Radio Free Nation“, a liberal caller said that Obama’s stimulus package wasn’t pork, because the Merriam-Webster definition of “pork” was something that a lawmaker put into a bill to benefit his constituency,and the President wasn’t a lawmaker, so it couldn’t be pork.
I sat back and let that sink in for a bit.
And I made a mental note; being a longtime observer of liberals in action, I knew among lefties, memes are like whack-a-mole. If they pop up in one place, they’ll soon pop up everywhere else.
And sure enough, it did.
A look at some of Obama’s claims in Elkhart, Ind., and the news conference called to make his case to the largest possible audience:OBAMA: “Not a single pet project,” he told the news conference. “Not a single earmark.”
THE FACTS: There are no “earmarks,” as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork — tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.
For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other “priority procurements” by the Coast Guard.
Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on “roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on.” He added, “And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart.”
So it’s not pork. It’s pancetta.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:42 am
And he’s out on the campaign trail again…ugh, I thought the election was over. Of course that’s what he did as a senator was campaign, so I guess it’s all he knows. Who is he trying to convince? Hasn’t he succeeded in getting this piece of crap the votes he needs? Or is he trying to convince the people not to revolt. I don’t get it. Can someone please educate me?
:-/
February 10th, 2009 at 10:38 am
clownsnark due to arrive in 3…2…1…
(oh, tolowen, such a setup!)
February 10th, 2009 at 11:19 am
He won.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am
“Pork” has become the most meaningless word in politics. Apparently, “pork” and spending have become the exact same thing. Projects you like are called spending, and projects you don’t like are called pork. I fail to see any value in conservative hystrionics about “pork.”
$2 billion for a clean-coal power plant? Gasp! It’s… infrastructure in a stimulus bill! Who’d a thunk? What the heck do you WANT us to spend it on?
Mitch, I know you don’t like overgeneralizations. so please tell me, what would distinguish regular spending from “pork”? Should legislators only push spending they hate, so it can’t be called a “pet project”?
February 10th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
The grapenuts are all wet on this one, Jeff Rosenberg. Everyone knows Obama’s a Muslim and wouldn’t go anywhere near pork.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
What the heck do you WANT us to spend it on?
Nuclear power?
More generally how, exactly, is a clean-coal power plant going to stimulate the economy? For that matter, how is any of the billions of stimulus dollars going to do anything to impact an economic recession? From what I can tell, the thinking is “if we all just hope real hard, maybe something good will happen. Now, let’s spend this money we don’t have already!”
February 10th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Yossarian, that’s a completely different complaint. I think spending stimulates the economy, but you clearly don’t. So complain about that, not “pork.”
February 10th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Hey wingnuts: don’t say Angryclown never gave you anything.
http://obamasoundoff.com/
February 10th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I guess it depends. In my mind, it’s basically ALL pork.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Building bridges stimulates the economy? Does it stimulate the economy more than yatch companies who build yatchs?
February 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
What’s a yatch?
February 10th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I’m fine with clean coal, but the Mattoon earma – er, appropriation – seems questionable:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjQ3OGIwMjFkOGUyYjVjYzc0ODg5ZjM4OTliOTlmYTQ=
Special appearance by Blago, too. Draw your own conclusions.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Jeff Rosenberg wrote:
think spending stimulates the economy, but you clearly don’t.
If that’s the criteria, have a payroll tax holiday for a year. Every worker gets a raise, and the cost for a business to keep its employees drops. Nobody loses other than politicians who justify their existence by taking money from group A and giving it to group B.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I’m not quite sure what a yatch is, Yoss… but there was a guy named Raymond Luxury Yatch.
Of course, it is actually pronounced “Throat Warbler Mangrove”
February 10th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“Throat Warbler Mangrove”
That is a pornstar name that needs to become a reality. I’m envisioning the world’s first pornstar to wear a monocle in every scene.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Cathcart’s dream is to have a three-way with Col. Klink and Mr. Peanut.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Actually, I was thinking it would be a female pornstar, but you just keep going with your own personal kink there, Clown.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
When they say “clean coal” do they mean carbon sequestration or does that mean less particulates, mercury etc.?
February 10th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Sounds like the same hair splitting as the argument that torture isn’t cruel and unusual punishment because….. wait for it…. torture isn’t punishment.
Which doesn’t of course make torture by any other description acceptable to many of us.
That one came from one of our supreme court justices. Scalia if I recall correctly. Guess wordgames pop up from all over.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I don’t see the difficulty, Dog gone. Depends on the definition of ‘punishment’ I suppose.
It is sometimes good to be legalistic in these matters because it provides protection against the arbitrary actions of the legal system. An opposite example would be the gov’t declaring some piece of land you own to be a habitat reserve that restricts your right to develop it after you’ve bought it. They haven’t ‘taken’ it away from you but they have certainly taken part of its value.
I admire Scalia because he recognizes that lawmakers make law. If you want waterboarding to be illegal make it illegal instead of counting on the courts to decide that it is.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Terry, I believe that waterboarding has already been made illegal, and the courts finally got around to affirming it.
Not that Scalia was to keen on doing so.