Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Are Grizzlies Germain to the Reporter's Point?

It seems that no matter what type of article is being written, the reporter often tries to include his or her political views. The article linked here is ostensibly about the recovery of Grizzly Bears in Montana. However, the article attacks John McCain for a floor speech condemning "pork barrel" spending in which the study is mentioned as an example of poor use of taxpayer money. The expenditure of $4.8 million dollars for DNA testing hair samples collected from barbed-wire traps seems on the surface to be a prime example of pork-barrel spending. Without adequate explanation for why the study should be conducted, that would certainly seem to be the case.

When multiple items are rolled into -- or added on -- to a bill, it becomes difficult to truly debate the merits of each item. If the scope of bills could be narrowed to core issues, perhaps this problem could be resolved. There are rules concerning "germainness" of provisions that are supposed to keep the scope of a bill within the realm of its original purpose. It seems that such rules no longer work or are often ignored when it comes to what has come to be known as "pork-barrel" projects. The other issue is that if each item were considered singly, the number of bills before our legislative bodies would increase exponentially. These issues are part of what makes reform of the legislative process so difficult.

I guess this entry seems to be wandering around a bit. It is a circuitous path to this point: The reporter attacks McCain over an issue that is not the problem. It is reform of the legislative process that should have been attacked, not a Presidential candidate who the reporter obviously would like to see defeated.

Personally, I'm happy to know that the Grizzlies of Montana are recovering. I'm sure there is concern among the ranchers about detrimental impacts on their livestock. It is good to know that a higher number of bears may ease restrictions on oil and gas exploration. It is a multi-edged result from an apparent pork-barrel project that was poorly explained because of a legislative process in need of reform.

(The original news release from USGS can be found here.)

No comments: