Once again, the Times-News serves as an arena for the knock-down drag-out fight between Republican 1st District Congressional Candidates Phil Roe and David Davis.
Roe, Johnson City’s mayor, said Davis wanted earmark reform during his 2006 campaign but reversed position.
“Well, he did. He either changed his mind or something, but he did,” Roe said of Davis’ stand on earmarks.
Davis, during the 2006 Republican primary race, told the Times-News that Congress needs to control federal earmarks.
“We’re spending too much money attaching budget bills to other pieces of legislation,” he said two years ago.
After being elected, Davis signed on to legislation — which is stuck in a House committee — to cap earmarks at 1 percent of total budget outlays.
But he also filed earmarks to bring federal funds back into the district.
“They need to be open and transparent and available for public scrutiny,” Davis said of earmarks. “The Constitution gives the right of funding to start in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate, not in the White House. This talk about earmarks is not to lower the budget. It’s to shift where the money goes. It’s still going to come from the taxpayer. People in Washington want to shift it to the White House. If they shift it to the White House, money in Tennessee would go to Nashville, Memphis, Chattanooga. You would not see any money coming down to Northeast Tennessee or rural America.
“Rural Americans pay taxes, too. … East Tennessee deserves its fair share coming back. We wouldn’t have a medical school (at East Tennessee State University) if there wasn’t something called an earmark.”
The entire report is here.
Of course, the article oversimplifies the problem. Area voters don’t just take issue with Davis’ earlier statements on earmarks or how this is inconsistent with his actions in office.
The problem is David Davis seems untrustworthy.
Folks, I try to be fair here. I certainly don’t intend to target Davis, who has been described by many as a really nice guy and a good Christian fellow. Nobody wants to pick on the poor misunderstood nice church-going guy, who probably hums Amazing Grace when he ties his shoes every morning.
But … GOOD GRIEF! How could anyone overlook Davis’ pattern of saying one thing and doing another, twisting facts to suit his agenda and acting to please his campaign donors?
In addition to slightly shifting his position on earmarks, Davis told Derek Hodges last year he favored providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country rather than deporting them. Fast forward to this election year, and he’s making nice with T-FIRE and now says:
“People in Northeast Tennessee are very generous people… They understand if you have a guest, the guest comes and visits but always goes back home. They understand that illegal means illegal, and we have a rule of law in America, and amnesty is not an option.”
Add to this, Davis’ tendency to distort facts when speaking to area voters. He has been called out on these exaggerations by blogger Joe Powell, TriCities.com editorial board and (much to my delight) the Times-News readers.
And yes, to me, these things matter.
How much should it matter?
Well, Davis recently came under fire for obtaining a rather large part of the gubment pig for one of his more generous campaign donors. He had a somewhat believable excuse. He was helping a local industry. And the explanation might have rung true had it not been for the King Pharmaceutical/Altace mess which led to the *Timothy Hill/ Wikipedia scandal.
Of course, I realize campaign donations do not necessarily mean the candidate is beholden to the donor. Energy Solutions shelled out $5000 to Lamar Alexander’s campaign and he doesn’t seem to have been worth the money. So, I try not to jump to conclusions about these things.
But am I willing to take that risk on Davis?
Considering Davis has taken money (indirectly) from these folks AND that the Gregory brothers have now started up the Gregory Energy Parters and invested in United Coal Company, which fits in nicely with Davis’ latest chatter about clean-coal technology (also, if you tally up the amount of money the Gregory family has donated to the David Davis Victory Fund, it becomes far more troublesome than a meager $1000 donation from the Florida Sugar Cane League) I say no.
And if I weren’t so tired, I’d have said that more emphatically and with curse words.
You know, coal mining is already an issue in East Tennessee as is what we do with radioactive waste. These are some pretty damn serious issues to have sitting in your backyard. While I am not implying we should all run out and hug trees whilst refusing to consider the pros and cons of all alternatives: I do think it’s important that we elect representatives who will approach these issues in an unbiased manner, listen to the people, communicate truthfully with constituents and apply a little common sense when weighing the wants of big business against the people’s desire for clean air, water and conservation of land or way of life… or hell, just life itself. The deep-pockets of donors shouldn’t be a consideration here.
And given Davis’ history, I am not confident he is that representative.
This is the press release I sent to the Times-News, Johnson City Press and others yesterday. Haven’t heard a word from them about it, of course:
First District Democratic candidate Rob Russell takes issue with Roe, Davis pork quarrel
In an article in Kingsport Times-News on July 6, Republican primary competitor Phil Roe challenged incumbent David Davis’s stance on “earmarks,” which he noted had changed since the Congressman first took office in 2006. Then, Davis supported legislation that would cap earmarks at 1% of total spending; now, he defends his use of earmarks by stating, “We wouldn’t have a medical school if there wasn’t something called an earmark.”
Democratic candidate Russell’s response:
First, let’s call earmarks what they are: pork. Whether it’s a pig’s ear or the whole hog, they amount to the same thing: Congress-approved spending that goes around the legitimate process of funding. The result of this is that the President is unable to control spending and government agencies aren’t able to select public projects based on merit and need. Spending often gets directed by Congressmen to pet projects with limited benefits to specific constituencies. According to Citizens Against Government Waste there was $13.2 billion in pork in the 2008 Fiscal Year budget.
Davis’s remark about the medical school (at ETSU) is also interesting. It may or may not be true that some funding for the medical school came from pork, but playing pork barrel politics in higher education is a highly controversial subject. Providing pork for research circumvents the justifiably time-honored process of competition and peer-review. Instead of competing for funding by presenting the best ideas and proposals — a process that has immeasurably benefitted America both economically and academically — earmarks for higher education weaken science by eliminating competition and awarding money based on a Congressman’s influence and desire to get re-elected.
And pork in education is on the rise. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, pork spending in education has risen from $528 million ten years ago to $2.25 billion today. While education represents only about 5% of the overall “pork pie,” the numbers clearly show that its use is growing dramatically.
Davis’s flip-flop is not surprising, considering that he’s trying to get re-elected and facing a strong competitor in Dr. Roe. But what Davis should realize is that the era of pork barrel politics is over, just as the kind of long-term incumbency that used pork to control regional loyalty is also fading.
I strongly support putting an end to pork barrel spending. At the very least, reform should begin by making the earmarking process totally transparent (identifying the Congressman, the recipient, and providing a well-documented rationale). It should be the duty of our elected representatives to work hard to better the lives of their constituents, but they should never do so by participating in a process that is so blatantly fiscally irresponsible and, frankly, undemocratic.
Go to http://www.robrussellforcongress.com for more information about Democratic candidate Rob Russell.
[...] ticks off her numerous objections to the reelection of First District Congressman David Davis: The problem is [...]
Davis shift on immigration might matter to you because you love the mexicans but for the rest of us who dont and think they need to remember where they come from and go back why should we give a damn if he shifted more to the right?
The problem with politicians who make a genuine shift to the far left or right is they are less willing to compromise, tend to be irrational on some points and serve more as an obstacle than an agent of change. This means you do not get any workable form of immigration control or restriction. I don’t see any reform to the system or a reasonable path to citizenship. And we’ll both continue to sit around, doing nothing except watching the partisan dog and pony show while we bicker amongst ourselves.
Of course, my issue with Davis is more: Has his position shifted? Are you sure? Really? How do you know?