Pork producers

Rarely do I part company with U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson. I respect her, agree with the vast majority of her positions, admire her ability to balance the partisan battles in Congress and firmly believe her roots -- both philosophically and politically -- are in tune with the 8th District of Missouri. I part company with her on the question of "pork."

Pork in Washington, D.C., is defined as spending your tax dollars for projects -- more often than not within the district -- that slide quietly under the budget radar. It is not a new practice nor one that is likely to evaporate overnight. Pork has become a thread in the fabric of the federal government. And, by golly, it's still wrong.

The latest pork list is now available. It lists all members of Congress and the amounts their seniority and position make available to them. And Representative Emerson is the top House spender in Missouri. I hesitate to call her the Pork Princess, but the label seems to fit.

For starters, I care not about the merits of the various projects -- $17.2 billion in total -- that fall into the pork category. I am certain that most of these spending items have a useful purpose, and many would undoubtedly be approved through the normal budgetary process. That, however, misses the point.

Emerson last year was able to gain approval for just over $60 million in taxpayer dollars for 50 separate projects. She is far from alone. U.S. Sen. Kit Bond -- primarily because of his seniority and position -- slipped a cool $309 million in pork projects to rank in the top 10 Senate members to embrace pork.

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill -- to her great credit -- was one of only five members of the Senate to shun the process of pork and came in dead last. In this case, last is far better for taxpayers than first.

And just to illustrate that the question of pork is neither a conservative nor liberal issue, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn and U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold both rejected pork, and these two are about as far apart on the political spectrum as you could find.

If a project -- like U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton's $10.4 million chapel at Fort Leonard Wood -- has sufficient support and merit, then by all means, it should be funded. But what about transparency and accountability? Don't we taxpayers deserve at least that much openness?

In Washington, D.C., they hate the label of pork so they call these $17.2 billion spending programs "earmarks." But what is it they say about putting lipstick on a pig? It's still a pig.

I love to retell the story about the local politician who railed endlessly against pork only to turn and defend three projects funded in Missouri's Bootheel by those very same tax dollars. You see, pork is always spent on someone else's projects, while worthwhile expenditures are made closer to home. Hypocrisy is nonpartisan.

Emerson has not lost my support, my vote nor my respect. I just hope that she and the hundreds of other members of Congress think long and hard before they spend our tax dollars. I think of the millions of hours of labor that went into generating that $17.2 billion dollars in tax revenue. Those who toiled to send that money to Washington deserve the open process and assurance that their money is being spent wisely and without consideration for political gain.

Is that asking too much?

Michael Jensen is a Southeast Missourian columnist and publisher of the Standard Democrat in Sikeston, Mo.