Fed up with the earmark demagoguery (reprise)
Can we get just a moment of complete honesty please? Just one.
A few months ago I wrote a piece warning about hypocritical politicians who love to misleadingly use the term earmark. For them, it is a grand straw man argument flaunted to cover for their own fiscal policy while riling the feathers of the average voter fed up with federal waste.
It is clear that an earmark moratorium answers the simple plea of individual responsibility which we, the voters, expect.
If we are intellectually honest about the subject we should acknowledge legitimate dissent on the matter. It is a small amount of the budget in which our Congress critters get to decide where to allocate money to and in many cases abuse.
Still, many are legitimate needs where local tax base funds cannot afford tackle. I can think of two in my district from years past. One including the clean up of the White River basin project here in Southwest Missouri.
With that in mind, it discourages me to the point of noninvolvement reading overly hyped critical comments against known conservatives Senator Jim Inhofe and Senator-elect Roy Blunt.
It literally makes me sick to my stomach to see Erick and Dana Loesch completely forget Senator Claire McCaskill’s votes for porkulus™ and Obamacare™ and carry her water in attacking Roy Blunt on earmarks.
I find the comments seriously troubling and intellectually dishonest at best. A knife in the back and push towards ideological purity and worst.
I would like Roy to sign on the earmarks. No, it isn’t a deal breaker to me.
That said, the deal breaker for me is the larger battle over entitlements.
The entitlements monster is hundreds of times more powerful and entrenched than earmarks. You want to impress me? Do something about those issues.
Right now we need to focus our energies on where we are going to cut the monster and muster all the political capital and courage we can.
Rush Limbaugh was correct in that we should be proposing massive cuts and make those who want to increase government spending, like said Senator McCaskill, defend those larger programs which cost us hundreds of times more.
The upside to much of this discussion is that McConnell and other members of the GOP leadership do seem to be getting the message. I hope they understand the power they wield come from the consent of the governed.
In the end I hope those conservatives who are against the moratorium change their mind and decide vote for the policy. Similarly, I pray some of our conservative leaders and friends choose better battles to engage and hold the line on.