Redstate

behind the "Trainwreck" nickname?

In any case, good on Sen. Coburn for trying to bring some fiscal responsibility back to government.  I probably disagree with him on many issues, but the feasability of tax-cut and spend is apparently not one of them.  There's more common ground here between D's and R's than I think many realize.

Any member of Congress who's trying to fund projects that can't pass in the light of day needs to be held to task for it.  Many are afraid of losing their own pork, which, to be fair, includes vital infrastructure improvements.  As Scott Shields on MyDD put it in lamenting the failure of the Coburn Amendment, "One Senator's pork is another Senator's economic development."  But the American people are decent folk, and it seems to me that important work could pass public muster.

I'd probably disagree with most people on this site as to what constitutes pork vs. vital programs.  But I think that holding it up to the light is an incredibly effective way to eliminate unquestionable waste.  If nothing else, it's in keeping with the ideals upon which our government was founded.  We assume the collective wisdom of the people to be superior to anyone's individual wisdom.  They won't accept or reject everything clearly, but that which is overwhelmingly rejected ought to be a pretty easy call.

The items left over may spawn a Democrat-Republican fight, but at least then it would be a fight worth having.  Discussing bridges at the price of Lear jets shouldn't even waste our precious time.

thanks for me the next time you're on a call with him. I heard that student loans are going to be cut now instead of Senator Stevens' bridge. Makes me really excited to further my education. Frankly, a Democrat would be better than him on this issue. I'm not a fan of entitlements, and my education won't really suffer, but many people's will. Their aspirations are hinged on pathetic speeches of threatened resignations. That wan't courageous, that was cowardly.

1. States don't even have these projects in the priority list. Otherwise they would have already budgeted for them in the general fund.
   
2. I sure wish my senators Feinstein and Boxer would have voted for the Coburn amendment. It received only 19 votes. As a dem this seems to me like the perfect opportunity to bridge the two parties. What a no brainer! But no...every politician who wants to keep their pork voted against taking Stevens' pork. This is the kind of vote that highlights that the battles shouldn't be republican vs. democrat, but rather the people vs. the politicians.

I find it heartening that Dems and Reps might find common ground here to re-establish some fiscal responsibility. I don't agreee with him on everything, but I certainly support him on this.

I'm skeptical on Coburn and willingness to cut the budget. He's shown that he's willing to go on the offensive when:

1>  The budget cut he's proposing has no chance at all of passing.

2>  It's somebody else's pork.

I'll believe he's real when he starts talking about reducing farm subsidies:

Oklahoma's farmers and ranchers deserve a Department of Agriculture and a federal farm program that reflects their values of independence, self-reliance, thrift, community, honesty and integrity. Federal farm dollars should directly assist family farms, not expand bureaucracy. I am committed to bringing increased efficiency and decreased bureaucracy to each area of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

On energy one of his main thrusts is:

Protecting marginal well production -- Which is another term for subsidies to small petroleum (as are in OK).

On healthcare(he's a doctor):

Subsidies for prevention -- More money for doctors.

Expand individual options (don't make doctors answer to insurance companies trying to keep costs down).

Limit Lawsuits -- Let doctors keep their money.

I actually agree with a few of these proposals, but make no mistake, Coburn likes the government subsidies when they affect him or his constituency. Proposing a budget cut that's a safe 5,000 miles away doesn't show much. A 1% cut in farm subsidies would show much more.

A layman observer's biography here.

Coburn's a unique animal in the Senate -- indeed, in the Congress, or even in Washington.  He was part of the House freshman class of 1994 ushered in by Newt's Contract With America.  He was (and is) a practicing physician in Muskogee, OK, either a general doc or an OB, because he delivers babies.  He's quite adamant and proud of being a 'citizen legislator'.

He alone seems to have meant it.  He term-limited himself out after 3 terms, and while in the House he was a big-time pain in the butt to the GOP leadership -- most notably in the area of curbing the runaway federal budget.  And as history has borne out, the 1994 takeover by the GOP has brought us many good changes, but utterly no change in runaway spending.

He ran for the Senate in 04, more-or-less on the platform of taking on big government. He wasn't kidding.  And here's where the trainwreck comes in.  For generations, the budget/spending/appropriations/pork industry has corrupted all of Congress, and it thrives in part because of a certain amount of shuck-and-jive, sleight of hand, looking the other way, convenient memory lapses, and the 'you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours' theme.   Shining the light on the real way of doing things is discouraged by all.

In the House, a genuinely principled member who is bound and determined to do something about runaway spending  can be shoved aside and ignored. In the Senate, one determined person can be much more than a pain in the butt -- he can pretty much blow things up.  Thus, the term of endearment we have for him, Senator Trainwreck.  

Don't be fooled by the 86-13 vote on that failed amendment (the Screaming Stevens episode).  Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) is perhaps the worst of the pork kings, even worse than Bob Byrd. Coburn has definitely shone some light on the cockroaches, and they are very, very unhappy.  And when they're very, very unhappy, regular tax-paying Americans should be very, very encouraged.

This administration and the Congress have abandoned any sense of fiscal responsibility. All elected officials, from the President on down, should be subject to scrutiny when it comes to their spending views and habits.

It won't be until we start voting the spendthrifts out and start electing those committed to a balanced budget and reducing pork will we get to where we need to be.

Yes, all sides can unite behind this principle! We can only hope...

"Conservative" apparently doesn't mean "fiscal conservative" - if the Dems had any organization at all this could be exploited in the upcoming '06 and '08 elections.