Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Yeah, yeah, yeah - when is an earmark not an earmark?
drimp, drimp - when it's for shrimp! drears drears - shrimps got no ears!
Hoo-Ahhh hahahahahahahaha - no kiddin' ya can't make up s*** like this! From the WSJ, no less!
Texas Congressman Ron Paul -- libertarian gadfly and current Republican Presidential hopeful -- has made a name for himself as a critic of overspending. But it seems even he can't resist the political allure of earmarks.
After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.
When we called Mr. Paul's office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked," the spokesman said. "What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public -- and I have to presume it's not by accident."
On the other hand, good libertarians should want to start cutting somewhere. The problem with earmarking is that each year the habit grows by leaps and bounds so that it now represents real money. It is also a gateway to political corruption -- a la Duke Cunningham, and other Congressmen currently under investigation for trading favors for earmark.
Mr. Paul is one of Congress's better fiscal conservatives. So the fact that even he feels obliged to grab multiple earmarks is all the more reason to keep fighting for transparency in the earmark process, as well as for the line-item veto, which would give Presidents a chance to impose some spending discipline from outside Congress.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636043871288806.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
"Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked," the spokesman said. "What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public -- and I have to presume it's not by accident."
"Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked," the spokesman said. "What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public -- and I have to presume it's not by accident."
Thank you. I am right, and the entire right wing Neo Nazi, Republitard movement is wrong, again. This time one of their stoolie spokesliars made the mistake of actually telling the truth, AGAIN. What is that, twice this week?
"Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked," the spokesman said. "What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public -- and I have to presume it's not by accident."
What has Republitards' panties in a bunch isn't earmarks, it is that they no longer control the House and Senate, and therefore can't control how much of those earmarks comes home to their campaign contributors.
Because it can lead to graft and corruption is the real reason to seek earmark reform, and even the Wall Street Journal gets that...
It is also a gateway to political corruption -- a la Duke Cunningham, and other Congressmen currently under investigation for trading favors for earmark.
Oh SNAP! When the WSJ OpEd team starts recognizing that if it walks like a duck and quacks and swims in a pond, it may be a duck, that ain't good news for the conservative movement.
Report Abuse