Wednesday, January 26, 2011

On the other hand…

…while I like the "yes we can" spirit that the mention of the response to Sputnik - big dreams and big investment around a common purpose - conjures, at least to me, the earmark veto pledge is just silly pandering to a constituency that's not going to appreciate it.

Well, it's more than that, I suppose. It's an executive branch power grab, too. The ability of Congress to write the budget pretty much any way they please is one of their Constitutional prerogatives, and one that I doubt either party in either house is eager to yield easily.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, December 02, 2010

Not that there's anything wrong with it…

…but...
According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the (Congressional Tea Party Caucus), which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.
OK, there is something wrong with it, but it's the hypocrisy, not the earmarks.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

An earmark?

Seems to have an air of earmarkiness...
Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks -- money included in a bill by a lawmaker to benefit a home-state project or interest -- was short-lived.

Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government.
Nay, say the Senator's peeps. It's just a "specific spending provision ."

Told ya' they'd redefine the problem away.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Stay tuned…

...I think we'll be hearing a lot of this...
[W]hen it comes to her own district, she's in favor of a little earmark "redefinition." Because what is an earmark, after all?
"Advocating for transportation projects for one's district in my mind does not equate to an earmark," Bachmann told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune yesterday.

"I don't believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark," Bachmann continued.
The problem is that the word 'earmark' has been so thoroughly debased by the likes of Bachmann, of course, that earmarking is just a tool for financing projects that may be entirely worthy. Like any tool, it can be misused in a number of ways, but that's not the fault of the tool.

Lots of Congresscritters love them some ribbon cutting ceremonies and lots of constituents have a bigger appetite for pork than they're apt to casually confess. If the redefinition campaign isn't successful, I expect a re-christening.

How 'bout 'targeted appropriations'?

Remember, you saw it here first.

Hat tip to Steve Benen.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, November 11, 2010

From the "Me too" file…

…curiously enough. Hard to imagine, but Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, a conservative's conservative in the Senate by any measure, and I share the same concern about his caucus...
So my concern is this…these guys will come in and the first vote they will cast is to trash the Constitution and reject their oath of office.
Me too. Of course, I see that as Republican business as usual. It's one of the reasons I keep saying that…

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

From the "Credit where it's due" file.

The whole hypocrisy thing notwithstanding, when he's right, even Rand Paul's right...
In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad “symbol” of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it’s doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. “I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests,” he says.
Of course, earmarks are a "bad symbol" in large measure because of the demagoguery of Teapublicans like Paul. It's also true, though, that the earmarking process would benefit from some kind of sunshine reforms. For instance, when Patty Murray uses the earmarking process to steer millions of dollars to critical projects in local communities that might otherwise be overlooked, she's proud of it, and she should be.

Of course, Republicans tend to be more familiar with using the earmark process to bypass hearings and secure those "dead of night" sweetheart deals for their corporate investors, so perhaps their dim pubic reaction to their shady private practices is understandable. I suppose there's some comfort, in fact, in the knowledge that they retain enough humanity to feel enough shame and guilt to lie about who they are and what they do.

There's some comfort, too, knowing how crazy the people who supported the "no more earmarks" Paul when he was lying to get elected are gonna be now that Rand Paul's right.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

From the "Worth repeating" file.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell at The Notion...
Let me say it one more time is this totally psychotic political environment: Earmarks are not necessarily bad.
Rinse, lather, etc.

Labels: ,

From the "Worth repeating" file.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell at The Notion...
Let me say it one more time is this totally psychotic political environment: Earmarks are not necessarily bad.
Rinse, lather, etc.

Labels: ,