Pork Barrel Over the Falls

In the wake of the Abramoff scandal in Congress, light once again is being shined on the corrupt nature of the professional system of lobbyists who currently populate Washington D.C. The system or the problem should in no way surprise Americans or have caught them unawares. For as long as big government has thrived in Washington, the professional lobbyist has fed off and strengthened the system by his presence. That one along with his brethren should try to push the boundaries of the current corrupt system was only natural and should have been expected. So here we are. What to do.

First, we should consider that the very nature of pork barrel spending is anathema to the Constitution. Such spending is about as unconstitutional as it gets and I challenge anyone to disagree with that point. Clauses like the Commerce, General Welfare, and Common Defense Clauses of the Constitution have been stretched past the breaking point to justify any and all manner of spending without originalist precedent, usually manufactured out of whole cloth. As the famous James Madison said in a matter concerning paying a charity to French refugees, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents....” The man often called the “Father of the Constitution” I should think would know the nature of what was written in that document. Pork barreling could be called the ultimate set of “objects of benevolence” to the constituents of Congress.

In an op-ed recently in the Wall Street Journal, John Fund further explained the thinking on this issue.

Public outrage is having some effect. Even a master pork-barreler such as Mississippi's Sen. Trent Lott now decries the federal highway bill for funding "museums and county roads" that have no national purpose. Some members are being urged by constituents to go back to the Constitution and ask what in it grants such authority in the first place.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson recognized the dangers of pork-barrel spending back in 1796 when he wrote James Madison that allowing Congress to spend federal money for local projects would set off "a scene of scramble among the members [for] who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest." While Madison did not adopt Jefferson's purist view, he largely agreed with it. In his last act before leaving the presidency in 1817, Madison vetoed a bill for federal financing of roads, bridges and canals. The man popularly known as "the Father of the Constitution" rejected the view of Congress that its general welfare clause justified the expenditure. He wrote that "such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms 'common defense and general welfare' embracing every object and act" imaginable.

It’s hard to say it better or more clearly than that. How, in light of any of this, does Congress find a position to justify such spending or other spending for that matter? Social Security, welfare and health care subsidies fall under this same heading. If the Congress is so eager to spend money on these things, let them attempt to amend the Constitution to do so, as is provided for in that document. Otherwise, they might be obliged to heed the warnings and admonishments of our Founding Fathers, lest they finally and truly ruin this nation for the rest of us and our posterity.

The answer to why they do not is quite simple. No one has ever believed such amendments would pass. Eventually, they would be defeated and the entire structure of Washington would come crashing down into the swamp. How the federal government does business, its massive power, would falter. I doubt you’d see such a selfless act from anything other than the purest angels, and none of those can be found in our nation’s capitol. So, again, what do we do? We can’t replace these men and women with men and women who believe in original intent, not enough that it will matter. As proof of this currently, accept that this platform is very much at the heart of Libertarian philosophy. How many Libertarian Congressmen are you aware of? Sadly, I know of none.

Lenin and his ideological descendants here in the United States correctly surmised that incremental socialism in the form of welfare would buy the complicity of the people much more easily and permanently than quick, immediate changes to America’s economic structure. Overt socialism, it was argued, could never take hold in America; a fair assessment. There are too many dependent or sympathetic to the government dole to stop it now, at least in whole.

Baby steps can be taken, especially in periods of scandal like this. Lobbying rules, cloture votes and new legislation to curtail access to Congress will do nothing. Those who get money and gifts to the Congress are already exempt from such feeble attempts and will likely remain so. The only way to do it is to push for restrictions on governmental power and this is what you and I must push for with our representatives.

Explain to them that this is the only way to truly dispel such influence over them and that your vote is contingent upon their acknowledgement of this fact. Make it the rallying cry, the campaign promise of anyone who wishes to stay in office, to first and publicly ask does this fit the original intent of the Constitution? If not, out it goes.

It’s a dream, certainly, but one we can make inroads to and times like now are likely the only times anyone would even remotely listen. Take it for what it’s worth.