In a word, Nay.Here's why.
Earmarks are an indication that representation in congress has become nothing more than a way of getting federal dollars for one's home district.
In fact, representation should not be about how to get federal dollars for one's home district, but about how to best use federal dollars for Constitutionally allowed activities that are national in nature.
The argument over earmarks is being waged by the likes of Jim Demint and Mitch McConnell.
Demint says earmarks are symbolic of congressional waste, while McConnell worries that if they don’t keep the pork coming, voters will hold it against them in 2012.
McConnell was asleep last Tuesday. Or drunk. Or whatever.
Look, my Washington DC "friends," what happened last Tuesday was an order from the boss (read: the electorate) to stop wasteful spending and get back to working within the framework of the Constitution.
Why, Mr. McConnell, can't you see that if you have to include earmarks in legislation in order to be re-elected you are in congress for the wrong reason?
If you want to provide special projects for your state, then run and get elected to your state legislature.
But you ran for federal office, not state office.
So please restrict yourself, and your compadres in congress, to things of a federal nature, sanctioned by the Constitution.
Your constituents, by the way, are leaning very heavily for what I have been advocating for more than half of my 68 year lifetime: one bill; one subject.
That means that once a bill is introduced, the only amendments that can be added to it must be directly related to the subject of the bill to modify the subject or to clarify it.
The use of earmarks to satisfy the greed need of your district is nothing more than political pandering at best; political blackmail at worst, and should be considered a breach of ethics.
Making political gains by the use of earmarks speaks directly to the quality of your character as a congressperson and to your ability to hear and respond to the will of the people.
Republicans hear us! We want you to change the process and do away with the earmark system!
Cutting spending does not mean just cutting the big stuff, like the Department of Education, or NEA or PBS, but cutting EVERYWHERE THAT CAN BE FOUND TO CUT, even if it hurts.
Come on, people! We put you there because you said you would listen. So, listen! Then act on what you hear!
Don't make us take back our support!
Today's Proof of President BO's amateurism: While in India he is asked his take on Jihad.
9 comments:
Earmarks are chump change compared to the structural debt problems we have, but they are a great symbol, and for that reason, I'm agin' 'em.
but James Inhofe, who argues for them, also has a point. It's not extra money being spent, it's just someone stepping in a directing it a certain way instead of letting a bureaucrat decide.
Anyway Joe, you hit the nail on the head. If we stopped sending so much money to Washington, there would be no fight over the pot.
Let the money for the states stay in the states to go towards what the residents of those states want it to be spent on.
Silverfiddle: It is true that earmarks represent only an infinitesimal amount of the budget, but that is not my concern. What I object to is their use to somehow "prove" that a congressperson/senator is doing something for his/her district.
Representatives are not sent to Washington to get things for the district. They are sent there to accomplish things Constitutionally mandated for the counrtry.
Earmarks have become a form of political blackmail as one congressperson says to another, "I'll vote for your district's cause if you'll vote for mine, otherwise...no deal."
That offends me and should offend all Americans.
I still advocate 1 bill - one subject.
good point Joe. Blessed Veterans day to you.:)
WHT: And to you!
I've seen some good Conservatives arguing FOR earmarks but I tend to feel like you do; one bill, one subject. It just has to stand to reason that anything riding along is SNUCK along into a bill, doesn't it?
Z: Yeah. And it takes away from their primary responsibility to represent their district on federal matters.
As per usual, bro. Joe, I'm with ya on this one. And btw, you seriously don't look 68! Maybe 60, but definitely not 68. Honest injun. God Bless.
One bill, one subject, indeed. I've always thought that sneaking something totally unrelated into a bill was...well...sneaky, and dirty pool.
Thanks for the post, Joe. My concern, though, is that this is so 'inside baseball,' that most of the populace won't get what 'earmarks' means anyway.
ex. - I will always believe that McCain made a big mistake when he made this a campaign issue. Most people were like, "What's he talking about?"
You & I, & the rest of your readers 'get it,' but the Republicans REALLY need a message that resonates w/ the people. While this is important, this ain't it.
DW: Most days I don't feel it. Thanks.
Susannah: It actually has to do with the basic honesty of the system. Earmarks are a built-in DIShonesty, indicative of the degree of trust our lawmakers deserve...not much.
Post a Comment