Pork For Me But Not For Thee

Some St. Louis area conservatives cheered Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) elevation to the Number 5 leadership position in the Senate Republican caucus.

royblunt

I didn’t. At least not politically. I like Senator Blunt personally, so I’m happy in that respect. But I’m not happy for the reasons some others are.

First, as I told Jo Mannies of the St. Louis Beacon, internal party stuff isn’t really a Tea Party matter. Leadership in the Senate’s GOP caucus is for Republican Senators to worry about.

More importantly, I’m a little disturbed about the expressed reason for the local happiness.

It seems some conservatives are eager for Senator Blunt to use his new power to channel more pork to the area. 

I don’t really understand how that’s conservative.  I thought we were trying to reduce the size and scope of government.  I thought our goal was to get Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers. 

When a Senator transfers money from one state to benefit another state, it’s socialism.

When a Senator writes regulations to help one business over another business, it’s corporatism, another word for fascism.

When a Senator bring home the bacon by borrowing from my future grandchildren, it’s generational theft.

Conservatives who protest wealth transfer though welfare payments to poor people can’t cheer wealth transfer to corporations.  Well, they can, but there’s a word for what that would make them.

The most difficult aspect of conservatism is eschewing short-term personal gain when it conflicts with the lawful role of government and good morals. On this point, I am far from perfect.  But I’m getting better at recognizing and correcting my own hypocrisy.

9 responses to “Pork For Me But Not For Thee

  1. I agree.  We think that if our guy is in office, then we will reap the benefits, usually touted as jobs for Missouri, when it is corporatism at best.  We need to recognize and to correct our own hypocrisy.

    • Don’t get me wrong: I want Missouri and the St. Louis region to flourish.  But it should happen because of our ingenuity and energy, not because we have a Congressional delegation skilled at taking from other states. 

  2. In the old soviet system Blunt would probably be considered an apparatchick. His conservatism often seems incidental. He knows who butters his bread and votes accordingly.

  3. and when a Senator (Bond) takes taxpayer money from all over the USA to build a pedestrian bridge at the St Louis zoo, that too . What ever happened to taking care of our own? I doubt my cousin will ever get her monet’s worth out of the bridge to the zoo. It’s a worthy project for us here (remembering a kid was killed there) but worthless to most of the nation that will never see it. This stuff will never cease until each of us starts to say “no thanks” to the politicians.  BTW… why did Blunt have a campaign tent at the Tea Party Arch rally?  was McCaskill invited?  Is the TP just a wing of the GOP, the other half of the corrupt DC establishment.

    • Thanks, Thomas.  On your final questions, all Missouri candidates and office holders were welcomed to have a presence at the 9-12 Tea Party. There were also Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates with tents or tables at the event, and I believe one Democrat.  

      Next question: Is the Tea Party an Republican auxiliary?  We’re working hard to keep the Tea Party independent here in St. Louis. We’re trying to advance the Jeffersonian view of Constitutional government against both the Hamiltonian view and the anti-Constitutional view. It’s a constant struggle.  The Hamiltonians are seductive. They dangle fruit from the forbidden tree.  And many good people bite. 

      I hope you will help us in this fight.  We need numbers to stand up to the popular cliques of Missouri Republican politics.  Every voice counts.

  4. I don’t disagree but to sit on the sideline while other states are passing the pork down the field in effect penalizes the home tream.  And if there are some unique qualifiers for Missouri other states lack, Sen Blunt would be remiss not to persue such opportunities.

    Something should be done to address the issues you raise but I’m not sure how you structure it.

    • I think that people will be very unforgiving of those who’ve piled on debt if and when the economy pancakes.  

      Also, is it wrong for the federal government to execute the transfer of wealth?  If so, then does the popularity of the wrong make it okay? 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s