Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Power corrupts the EarMarxists
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, March 10, 2008

Via Glenn Reynolds, I see Robert Novak is pointing out the "congressional Republican establishment's charade" of earmark reform. While there are a few Republicans who genuinely believe in and vote for reform, far too many of them are Status Quo Politicians, content to trade the ideals of the Republican Party for access to earmarks.

Perhaps we should start counting earmarks as campaign contributions. That is, in effect, exactly what they are: an Incumbent Slush Fund.

The Jeff Flake quote highlighted by Instapundit is quite right:
These developments encouraged Flake to say: "If Democrats actually move ahead with an earmark moratorium before Republicans, the Democrats will get the credit for eliminating earmarks, and, frankly, they'll deserve it."
Flake is right: if Democrats actually pass legislation to limit their own power, they will deserve praise. However...

  1. The next few years will give us hundreds, thousands of opportunities to if Democrats actually meant all those things they said about transparency, pork, fiscal responsibility, the deficit, corruption, the rights of the minority, the importance of process, fairness, etc.

  2. For the most part, we will learn that they didn't.

  3. Democrats and the Leftosphere will be remarkably silent about that.

I would very much like to be proven wrong.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
There will always federal projects, and there will always people who want them in their states (districts). The only solution I see is to force representatives from states who MAY get a project to recuse themselves from the process (completely, meaning they cannot even speak about it) and when a project is approved, the actual placement of project (where it’s going to happen) should be decided by an independent organization like the GAO based on hard facts.

We are completely two faced about this issue as voters, we all claim to abhor the process as explicit bribery, but then love to re-elect representatives on districts where they "bring home the bacon".

You could find virtually every representative able to simultaneously claim they are against earmarks, and also blowing their horns about the millions they brought into their district.

You know if even Ron Paul is bringing bacon home (by inserting the earmarks, and then voting against the bills that he knows will pass), we have a serious problem.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Captin: That’s why we really need leadership from a President about earmarks; you’ve pointed out why we’re not going to get it from Congress.

Obama, Clinton, McCain, I don’t care who; veto something for having too many earmarks!
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri/
Cap’n said:
...the actual placement of project (where it’s going to happen) should be decided by an independent organization like the GAO based on hard facts.
I think you mean something like BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure Commission.) Yeah, that worked real well.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
I could be accused of being a one-issue guy: Fiscal Responsibility, with all that entails. We don’t ever seem to get it from our elected officials. Yes Jeremy, somebody please veto a bill for having too many earmarks! Or... how about vetoing a bill with one earmark... just to send a message that they are a corrupting influence on our political process?

I’m not holding my breath.
 
Written By: JAMES AMENT
URL: http://jrament.blgspot.com/
I’ve had this conversation in real life at least twice in the past few weeks:

Me: "I’ll vote for anybody who is willing to be fiscally responsible."

Dem: "Why not vote democratic?"

Me: "Because all they’ve done is talk the talk."

Dem: "..."

It’s really quite rich seeing the Democrats slinging garbage about how Bush has spent us into bankruptcy; anybody with eyes can see that at the moment, it’s just political kabuki. They’ve had every opportunity to take action on it, and failed utterly.

Also, nothing throws a wrench in a political conversation like valuing actions more than words. Very anti-social, apparently.
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri/
I would very much like to be proven wrong.

I would very much like to be taller, more handsome and far richer.

Just about the same odds.

 
Written By: Uncle Pinky
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider