Specter serves up something to chew on
Connoisseurs of a certain simply prepared sandwich should have no difficulty following today's piece.
Because it deals with government pork projects and their potential implications on Pennsylvania's upcoming Senate race, the entire column is coming to you in easily understandable, appetite-inducing BLT format.
The bacon component deals with the pork being dispensed by Pennsylvania's senior spender — er, senator — Arlen Specter.
The lettuce portion is the perspective offered by the head of the organization that painstakingly tracks unnecessary government spending.
The tomato• I don't want to give everything away. But rest assured that just as in an actual BLT, it is no mere garnishment.
Now then, on to the sizzle:
Citizens Against Government Waste released its annual report on pork-barrel spending Tuesday, and Specter's name turned up about as often as a crude expletive at a Friars Club roast.
The Washington-based watchdog group linked Pennsylvania's increasingly embattled Republican senator to 312 pork projects.
The cost to taxpayers of the projects, which usually are not the subject of congressional hearings, serve only a local or special interest and are not competitively awarded: $228 million.
Specter might be a relative piker compared to the crown prince of pork, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., whose 112 projects total $382 million.
But that fact isn't likely to appease the many conservatives angry at Specter for recently supporting President Obama's economic stimulus package.
"Senator Specter has been on the appropriations committee for many years, so this really isn't out of the ordinary for him," said Thomas Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste president.
Schatz noted that out of the 312 items in the Health and Human Services funding appropriation, Specter was responsible for the inclusion of 186. Of those 186 appropriations, 139 were for the same amount — $95,000.
"He's obviously trying to please as many people as possible," Schatz said. "To give a set amount of money to a large group of recipients, I think, really shows the randomness and inequity of all of these earmarks."
Former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey stepped down Monday as head of the conservative advocacy organization Club for Growth to challenge Specter.
Care to wager that Toomey, who almost knocked off Specter in the 2004 Republican primary, might grill his opponent over his propensity for pork?
Schatz believes it's a distinct possibility.
"Sen. Specter clearly thinks this is an essential part of his representation," Schatz said. "Whether or not the citizens of Pennsylvania appreciate that might well be a part of the campaign."
Count on it.
And don't be surprised if an increasing number of people find Specter's fondness for dispensing pork difficult to digest.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.