« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

No More Earmarxists

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  March 1st, 2010 at 07:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“Earmarks are certainly not the only issue, but they are the most telling as to whether Republicans really have learned their lesson in the minority.”

This year many of us will be faced with a similar dilemma—wondering whether a Republican politician, who claims to be a conservative, is the real deal or the type who goes along to get along and will end up being part of the problem.

For self-described conservatives, it is easy to be pro-life, pro-troops, and pro-tax cuts. In most races, that is not how you separate the wheat from the chaff. You separate them on the basis of their belief in limited government—in short, do they think that government should do stuff. Period. And there is no better bellwether of politician’s proclivities toward limited government than whether they request and defend earmarks.

I know, I know. Many defenders of the Republican establishment don’t want us to talk earmarks. Earmarks are not the problem! They amount to such a small portion of the federal budget. Earmarks are the only way to deal with an intransient bureaucracy. They divide Republicans when we should be focused on battling the Obama Administration’s liberal agenda. Earmarks are the only form of constitutional spending and need to be defended no matter how unpopular. Its about the CONSTITUTION—didn’t you know??

The arguments are many, but they are all full of holes.

Yes, earmarks amount to a small percentage of the budget and compared to the enormity of the entitlement crisis of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid they are miniscule. But as Jeff Flake and Tom Coburn have said before, earmarks are the gateway drug to higher spending. If a politician thinks his reelection bid is in jeopardy because he won’t be able to deliver a bike path or high-speed rail project to his district, it is inconceivable to think that that same politician will sign up for allowing people to redirect their FICA taxes to personal accounts or slow the growth of Medicare. Earmarks erode the ability to say no to more government, and they corrupt often-good politicians with the enjoyment and the power of directing other people’s money to those who come to them and ask. And at times, earmarks directly enable increased government when they are used to buy lawmakers off. It is standard procedure for powerful Chairmen to demand that anyone with earmarks in a bill vote for the overall bill lest the projects get struck. Look no further than the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase.

Yes, earmarks afford lawmakers with an avenue to trump some nameless bureaucrat from sending all the federal dollars somewhere else, but then why are you so set on federal dollars flowing to your district? If you believe in limited government, why do you want your district to get its “fair share”? Let’s take the most conservative of earmarks—highway projects. For instance, a vital bridge or intersection that will alleviate traffic. Never mind that the federal interstate system has long been built, but highway funding could be devolved to the states so that the vast majority of districts (305) are not donor districts, meaning they contribute more in gas taxes than they get back. The whole point of the high way program is now to earmark and to give federal lawmakers power to direct taxpayer dollars. But do you think this sort of federalist argument would be made by an earmarxist? No, they would be spending their political capital getting theirs too.

Yes, Congress does have the power to spend money, but the vast majority of earmarks are spent on completely unconstitutional projects and activities. Lets take some of the earmarks requested by Senator Jim Inhofe (who we hear has been on quite the war path lately in defense of earmarks). Did the Founders really envision the federal government paying for developing curriculum in the Tulsa public schools for students at risk of dropping out ($195,000) or a river ferry boat program in Oklahoma City ($1.7 million) or an “engineering incubator” in Norman ($137,200)? What clause of the Constitution do those fall under exactly?

Yes, earmarks are “divisive” and making it an issue is bound to put many Republicans in a difficult spot. Sorry, but that’s really not my concern. After all the attention paid to earmarks over the last few years, if politicians are still earmarking—not matter how “transparent” (the ready-made reform for any earmarxist)—they can’t say they were not forewarned. In fact, they very likely think they can get away with it. Also, a Republican Congress isn’t worth having if its not going to a conservative one, filled with men and women who believe in limited government and can say no to those who come to the federal government asking for more. Do we really want to spend all this time and effort working to get so-called conservatives elected who fail us yet again?

Of course not. So let me say it. Earmarks are certainly not the only issue, but they are the most telling as to whether Republicans really have learned their lesson in the minority. Here is what I suggest:

  • Do not accept the conservative bona fides of any politician who has failed to take the moratorium or who argues for them.
  • Do not allow any politician to speak to a tea party rally unless they have taken such a pledge.
  • Criticize any “agenda” or any “contract” from any Republican leader or Republican entity which doesn’t include an immediate, unilateral earmark moratorium.

For my part, I’m going to note on the front page every lawmaker who immediately and unilaterally swears off earmarks (and that includes highway earmarks given that some of the worst, like the Bridge to Nowhere, get attached to the highway bill) and those who refuse. The Club for Growth keeps a central listing of all who have already so Redstate is just going to link to they’re site once its updated. For now, consider this opening post as fair warning to the establishment. It is time to purge the earmarxists from the conservative movement.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Rob_McEwen

    It is NOT enough to support the FairTax. Along the lines of what you are saying, sure… supporting the FairTax improves the revenue/tax side of things, but does NOT deal with the spending side of things.

    Supporting the FairTax (and lower taxes) is generally a good thing, But if we can’t control spending soon, we are doomed regardless of where we get the revenue and regardless of how high or low are our taxes.

    BTW – I’d actually prefer a 5% flat tax with no deductions combined with a *lower* FairTax rate–and an amendment to the Constitution banning just about all other methods of raising revenue and requiring a super majority to raise either the flat tax or the retail sales tax rates.

    ALSO–These are all good reasons why Huckabee should NOT be the nominee in 2012. Huckabee fails the spending & size-of-gov’t test–and we’ve been burned too many times by big republican spenders who suddenly “reform” during campaigning in those “seasons” when the winds are blowing conservative–but have no actual record of low-spending and small gov’t. How many times did that work out when they took office …and re-caught Washingtonitus?

  • jackhammer

    Erick,

    I agree with you 97% of the time…but for a party which is currently in the minority to impose themselves a moratorium on earmarks is like the isrealis deciding to disarm their nukes while iran ramps up….

    If we were in a position to eradicate the concept of earmarks, then fine…but if one side of the aisle stops them, and the other side continues, then we will see a vastyl disproportionate amount fo our tax dollars being spent in districts where we have a minority fo constituents.

    I understand the Ron Paul line here. Vote against anything that woudl cause spending to increase, but when you have lost that fight for your constituents, at least make sure that they get back somethign for their hard earned tax dollars.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    The legal definition of graft is as follows:

    Graft is the personal gain or advantage earned by an individual at the expense of others as a result of the exploitation of the singular status of, or an influential relationship with, another who has a position of public trust or confidence. The advantage or gain is accrued without any exchange of legitimate compensatory services.

    Behavior that leads to graft includes Bribery and dishonest dealings in the performance of public or official acts. Graft usually implies the existence of theft, corruption, Fraud, and the lack of integrity that is expected in any transaction involving a public official.

    The Louisiana Purchase, The Cornhusker deal, and more… I don’t believe the founders thought of this as a function of Congress. Yet’ we’ve become so accustomed to it that it is rarely remarked upon.

    This one belongs in RS University.

  • janis

    has ballooned so far out of control that it’s bankrupting us. What’s smart is to regain the majority and stop the practice cold. And as soon as possible, too.

  • jackhammer

    I don’t know that I have anything against Daniels, but his main selling point is his fiscal conservatism…’cause he ain’t got looks or charisma…and from what I read I am not that sure that he is all that socially conservative.

    I’ve just noticed you slipping him in in a couple of posts here and there, and I feel you might be trying to slowly build up the hoops that he happens to be able to jump through….

    Although it would be fun to see the liberal racists (and we know most of them are through their projection) ltepidly and rabidly let loose on his syrian hertiage.

  • Scope

    I especially like this statement-

    “There is no better bellwether of a politicians proclivities toward limited government than whether they request and defend earmarks.”

    The Club for Growth has a tab which lists those who have sworn off earmarks in 2009. It will be interesting if more join that group.

    For me, the most interesting porker is Ron Paul. He and his fan club have smaller and less government as their rallying cry, yet, he has gained the reputation as being one of the biggest earmarkers in the Republican party. Cavuto, on fox, interviewed him on his earmarking practice. His answers follow the same twisted logic that many of his other policies have-

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508604,00.html

    It’s hillarious when he inserts billions in earmark requests, and, then he votes against the bill. He can keep his conservative score up, and, still get his earmarks as he knows the bills will pass, even without his vote.

    Back in April of this year, Paul Ryan proposed an alternative budget to Obamas. He proposed a non-defense discreationary spending freeze for 5 years. It failed by a vote of something like 293 -137. Unfortunately 38 Republicans voted against it. Even if those Republicans voted for it, it still would not have passed, however, the Republicans would have been more cohesive had they stood in support of a conservative bill. It was reported that those Republicans that voted against it were reluctant to defend the cuts back in their home districts. They missed the loud and clear message that many conservative constituients across the nation are screaming to “stop spending.”

    http://newsmax.com/Headline/ryan-budget/2009/04/02/id/329236

    I think it would be a great idea to also include the top 5 or 10 Republicans who have inserted the highest earmark requests, or, the most wasteful requests. We need to name names.

  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    The earmarks, the extra medical tests doctors have to perform to avoid being sued for malpractice, foreign aid and military “deals” to countries perfectly capable of taking care of their own … and on and on and on, until we’re broke and our children and grandchildren are saddled with paying for all of it.

    It’s got to stop somewhere.

  • Scope

    Earmarking does nothing to lower spending and lessen government. Good, let the Democrats take all the earmarked money, and, drive the point home that they are the ones bankrupting our country. Continue to let them own the destruction. As Erick said, earmarks, while not the biggest expense items, have gained alot of attention by the majority of Americans as wasteful spending. To me, and many others, billions in earmark spending represents real money.

    BTW- Read my Cavuto link below to see how totally out of touch your buddy Ron Paul is on earmarks. He is a part of the problem.

  • Scope

    but to include foreign aid and military spending has nothing to do with the intent of this diary. Rather than to come here and defend Ron Paul’s crazy notions, why don’t you rail against Ron Paul who is one of the biggest Republican porkers in Congress. His faulty logic that the government is going to spend the money anyway, speaks more so of growing the government, than his constant mantra of less government. It’s like he is saying, I didn’t rob the bank, but, I did share in the take.

  • Return to Revolution

    Step 1. Corporation donates $ to campaign, often to reps of both parties. So far no problem.

    Step 2. In direct exchange for said campaign contribution, politician secures earmark, typically for many times the original contribution – all tax dollars of course. Problem.

    Step 3. Corporations/lobbyists now receiving tax dollars as profit and reinvest that $ (as more campaign contributions) to continue the cycle.

    This is another reason that makes their (earmarks) small % of spending irrelevant: that money represents a huge % of campaign contributions for many politicians of both parties. We’re funding the campaigns of politicians whether we like it or not.

  • spinoneone

    Here is a little suggestion: Conservatives should begin taking a look at laws passed in the last few sessions of Congress and repeal them. It is easy to do: H.R. 112 – 01
    Public Law 110-123 [example, not real] is hereby repealed.
    All rules and regulations inacted to implement P.L. 110-123 are hereby rescinded.
    All funds appropriated by the Congress to implement P.L. 110-123 and any rules and or regulations which were inacted to enforce P.L. 110-123 are hereby ordered returned to the Treasury and no further funds may be obligated to support the purposes of P.L. 110-123.

    Let’s start with EPA.

  • Scope

    although I’d have to say that the majority of those campaign dollars are going to Progressives.

  • archer52

    I was reading a history book and Madison seemed to argue against almost any federal spending. His concern was that once started it would be hard to stop. However, he didn’t have a problem with the federal government getting involved in roads, canals and other infrastructure projects, if approved constitutionally.

    I think we can get past the “is it constitutional” now. Obviously, as we drive down our interstate system, that issue has been addressed. The problem comes with all the other projects found in the federal budget, which I think is what you are complaining about. And you are right. Madison worried about a strong federal government taking everything and giving back what it wanted to serve itself and its political representatives. A man alive two hundred years ago saw the inevitability of the crash between his ideals and the weakness of human nature. In his mind I’m sure he knew his dreams would lose. It always has and it always will.

    Good luck on your earmark protest. Maybe they’ll add another stanza to Jim Croce’s “Don’t mess around with Jim”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP-srMOmstM

  • TxCon

    I know they do in others people districts and staes, but do they want them to end in their own districts. This may be a two-pronged campaign.

  • AngryMatt

    Erick already posted his personal endorsement of Daniels in a post earlier this weekend, and I really doubt RS is going to champion the cause of an undeclared candidate this far out from the 2012 primary season. So, I’m guessing no to your question of a Daniels “slow burn.”

    But I should point out (with the caveat that I like Daniels too, I just wish he had Romney’s polishing) that fiscal conservatism is the essence of conservatism. Why? Because a government that’s fiscally conservative tends to have less power and is therefore almost always on the “right” side of social issues too. I say almost because obviously there are areas, like abortion, where we as conservatives want the government to have some, as the Federalist papers would say, energy to protect the lives of the unborn.

    But really all we need is for the government to exercise powers under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to protect the rights of the unborn of all races, colors and creeds as it does to those already born. I’d think a fiscal conservative, who almost by definition believes in limited government, would not strip away the energy required to fulfill that mission. And to your first point Daniels has signed a number of pro-life bills in Indiana, so no reason to worry about that. Oh, and if we were to have success in 2012, we need to have a Reagan/McDonnell/Christie style campaign; social conservatives who stand up for their beliefs, but suggest that government should focus most of its efforts on economic policies and talk more about those issues.

  • ss396

    Not only are earmarks a ‘gateway drug’ (thanks for that argument!) but they are a usurpation of local government duties. Some porker in Washington wants to build a bridge (that he/she can put his/her name on), although the local city council would rather repair potholes, or replace sewer lines. Further, the earmark defenders can never explain why that money had to be laundered through Washington in the first place.

    For my money – if they want to direct funds to local projects then they should run for City Council. They have no business operating at the Federal level.

  • jackhammer

    He is a bit old for me to hang out with…but I said I understand his line here.

    I don’t say I love earmarks, but I think it is one of those symbolic type things that is not worth making a fuss about.

    I might be wrong, but my understanding is that earmarks don’t add to the spending of a bill, but they allocate where a given portion of those moneys will go…..so a bill with earmarks costs just asmuch as a bill without earmarks.

    to me it just seems a bit like not claiming social security out of principle…which again is dumb, because you paid in for a whole bunch of years.

  • jwebb

    Ron Paul believes in earmarks, loves earmarks and adds his own pet earmarks to appropriation bills knowing full well the bill will pass even when he votes no. Due to his unique mental capacities, he is able to justify his earmarks by saying it is the only way to target federal dollars, then defend his no vote by saying that none of this spending is constitutional.

    Some of his more recent earmarks went to a halfway house in Corpus Christi, not necessarily an evil project, but hardly a constitutional mandated expense.

    Don’t be fooled by Ronulans.

  • Scope

    are those directly affected. The ones getting the federal money. Earmarks in any district in the country like, mating habits of mice, would be more than obnoxious to even those in that district, except for those doing the foolish research.

    As someone else pointed out, it can probably be proven, with investigations, that some if not most of the earmarked dollars are going to politicians campaigns. The money goes to the pet project, and, the owner of that project turns it, or at least some of it ,back over in donations. It’s a giant scam.

  • jpniner

    You should notice how John McCain, with all his status and power in Washington, doesn’t Earmark.

    meanwhile the Paultard got 3 times as much Pork out of Pelosi/Obama than they let Sheila Jackson-Lee last year. telling

  • jpniner

    You should notice how John McCain, with all his status and power in Washington, doesn’t Earmark.

    meanwhile the Paultard got 3 times as much Pork out of Pelosi/Obama than they let Sheila Jackson-Lee last year. telling

  • writeblock

    …is destructive right now, since it sets up an unnecessary litmus test for candidates at a time when our fiscal problems on the federal level are screaming for attention. And it’s a false issue since most fiscal conservatives would avoid nominating liberals to the courts –which would more than take care of our social concerns, Rudy, for instance, is pro-choice. But he’s a strict constructionist who hails from the same cultural milieu as Scalia and Alito and has promised to nominate strict constructionists. So I fail to see the big deal if we nominated somebody like him. The last person we should be looking to for an okay on candidates is Dr. Dobson, given the dangers we are now facing. What’s absolutely necessary right now is limited government and fiscal containment before we slide into irreversible socialism. We need innovators and reformists like Daniels, Barbour, Rudy and Sarah–not higher taxing big government types like Huckabee, Romney, and Pawlenty. Let’s see the actual record of reform behind each candidate before we give our trust to anyone from now on.

  • writeblock

    …earmarks, foreign aid, NPR, ACORN…a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money…

  • TxCon

    but I just do not know about the average voters who buys into the “he brings$$ to the district” bit.

  • zroxx

    Pretty much echoes everything I’ve said here re: earmarks.

    If you can’t get the most basic exercise of fiscal discipline correct, i.e. don’t spend tax payer funds on pet projects that you and your cohorts pick and choose from at everyone’s expense, then you honestly cannot claim any kind of devotion to “fiscal conservatism”. And it indicates that you are not to be trusted with management of the federal budget as a whole.

    If you are serious about controlling spending and curtailing misuse of tax payer funds, then yes, stop seeking earmarks for your district and vote against all earmark spending.

    I certainly hope we never see another defense of or rationalization for earmarks on this site again, whichever party is in control.

  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    It’s all the different “little” programs that we, as a country, as D’s and R’s and indies, throw money at. Medicare Part D. NPR. Public Television. USAID. Grants to study everything from the mating habits of snakes to … fill in the blank. That’s why we’re broke.

    And FTR, my husband is retired Army. I’m talking about underwriting the sale of military hardware to places like Saudi Arabia, who in turn fund the Islamofascists who want to kill all of us!

  • zroxx

    I think it would be a great idea to also include the top 5 or 10 Republicans who have inserted the highest earmark requests, or, the most wasteful requests. We need to name names.

    These guys have taken the CAGW 2009 Pig Book and broken it down for you by rank. Of course the pig book looks at requests for 2009 which means some of this is a bit dated, but it’s certainly a good place to begin the beatings (and kudos).

    The Bad (top porkers by rank):

    House
    6. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
    2. Rep. Bill Young (R-FL)
    1. Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS)

    Senate
    9. Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
    8. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
    3. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
    2. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
    1. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)

    The Good (little or no trough feeding):

    Senate
    10. Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
    9. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)
    8. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY)
    1. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) (tied – 0 requests)
    1. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) (tied – 0 requests)
    1. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (tied – 0 requests)

    House (all of the following, 0 requests)
    Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)
    Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)
    Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA)
    Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH)
    Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
    Rep. Vito Fossela (R-NY)
    Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
    Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)
    Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)

  • jackhammer

    But earmarks are not add ons…they are simply targetted appropriations.

    So if a bill is for spending $1 billion and includes 100 million in earmarks, it is not a bill for $1.1 billion, but rather a bill with $100 million of specifically allocated moneys and $900 million for the other purposes of the bills…..

    So if someone were to vote in favour of a spending bill that included no earmarks, not one cent would be saved.

    But if a majority were to vote no on a bill that is 99% earmarks, not a cent would be spent….

    If anything is just playing to a populist crowd it is being incensed at earmarks.

  • zroxx

    Fighting for earmarks is an indication that the congressperson in question implicitly signs on to the theory that central planning works, and moreover that they should be the central planner – directing tax payer funds to specific pet projects that conveniently enrich their own legacy and/or political future.

    It is an indication that the congressperson accepts and promotes the use of funds that every citizen has kicked in to benefit only a few chosen citizens.

    It demonstrates that the earmark requester lacks fiscal discipline and self control and/or that they value their own legacy and political aspirations more than the careful stewardship of tax payer funds with which they have been entrusted.

    In short we can’t possibly hope to see actual spending decreases and reductions in the size of government as long as we keep getting trough feeding politicians in office who think their position rightly accords them the privilege of dividing up some chunk of the budget to satisfy their own whims and make themselves heroes of (some small part of) their constituents.

    Nothing about pressuring these congresspeople to stop earmarking means that we cannot also suggest that, for example, that portion of tax payer funding that formerly was divided up and parceled out to the chosen few actually be returned from whence it came in the form of an across the board tax cut. But you’re never going to see the tax cut and spending decrease until we at least get people in office who can exercise some financial self control and stop earmarking pet projects.

  • revivefederalism

    We don’t let anyone be on our stamps or money until they’ve been dead for ten years. There should be no buildings named after Byrd in WV. And sorry, but I’ve got serious concerns about airports and presidential libraries as well!

  • shushu1

    A couple of weeks ago on Hugh Hewitt’s show someone brought up earmarks and Hugh decribed it as the “squandering of hard earned tax payer money on politician’s pet projects”. That to me is an apt description and it needs to stop.

    I’m glad this is being focused on.

  • GreyCloak

    The Insurance Industry contributed $1,340,178,119 ($1.3 Billion) to Politicians in the last 12 years.

    That’s an awful lot of money, but ONE insurer (AIG) ALONE has received ~$180 Billion in bailouts.

    The “Insurance Care Bill” (it has nothing to do with health) is even more of the same.

    Buying politicians is the best investment one can make … nowhere else can you get a ~13,800% “return on investment.”

  • mdd1956

    How much moral authority would Marco Rubio command had he responded differently to the issue of the $8 Billion high speed Stimulus Train from Tampa to Orlando. His position, Christ et al cut the legs out from the argument against the stimulus, since the money was going to be spent anyway he would accept it.

    Floridians would never spend this money because it doesn’t save time, it doesn’t save money, it can’t possibly attract ridership, it will have a negative impact on land usage at either end as well as along the I4 corridor. All these bad for the environment it is trying to save.

    If Florida wouldn’t spend the money because it doesn’t make sense, neither should the Federal Govt. It is WRONG and we won’t accept it.

  • GreyCloak

    Not many years ago, I innocently applauded my Republican Congressman who “earmarked” Federal funds to expand our local highways. He bought my vote, for sure.

    I looked into it. My State and Federal gas taxes support the highway funds. I had also voted for a bond referendum (paid for by property taxes) to pay for the same roads. THEN, my Republican Statehouse SOLD the same highways and turned them into Toll Roads for the benefit of “investors” (some, foreign) for the next 99 years!

    By my count, my dutiful Republicans have charged me THREE TIMES for the same roads.

    You know, there are no “Federal Funds.” There are only Taxpayer Funds. No earmark is a “gift.” Each and every one is paid by me or my neighbor (next door, or in another State) or our children.

    PLEASE give me a candidate who promises to spend NO money, because none of the incumbents seem to realize that it is OUR money.

  • mdd1956

    Thanks

  • idealjoe

    comments……Although the flat tax might be simpler for tax payers than the what we have, It would not change the fact that many inequalities would still be in play. As long as the world turns there will be people like Barney Franks,Tim Geithner, and Chris Dodd. And they will be forever scamming the system to make honest Americans pay double, while they pay nothing. In the first place it would necessitate keeping the IRS and most Americans want these blood suckers to go away. In the second place, how many drug dealers do you know that file a return, so no flat tax for them. What about hookers, pimps,illegal aliens. I guess their flat tax contribution would be, uh…..ZERO. Did I figure that right? How much do you think Barney would pay? ha, ha ha ha.
    A consumption tax is the only way to plug all the holes. Everybody spends, buys, so EVERYBODY pays. Every time a dollar is spent it would send a small portion to the government. This program would add so many NEW taxpayers to the system that the fair tax itself would probably be much lower than predicted. Think of all the tourists and foreign dignitaries, like say for example when Hugo Chavez is here for a UN function and he and his entourage go to dinner in NY, they would be paying to help fund freedom. You know there are some things about this fair tax that really have a strange appeal to the warrior in my soul.
    If any other Red Staters can come up with some more of the hidden benefits of a consumption tax base, let’s hear some of them.

  • partyless1

    I would love to see all pork, earmark spending eliminated, along with eliminating the ability to place riders on bills. You can almost bet your life that a rider on a bill is an unethical approach to getting what would otherwise never pass the smell test.

    That being said, one must look at a candidate as a whole and not based on a single issue. This is one of the problems we have today with candidates, the ability to direct voters to a hot button and get elected even though they maybe the worst overall candidate.

    One would conclude by the “EAR MARK” standard, that we should support the RINO McCain as a good candidate, simply because he does not appear to support earmarks. Just because one does not take ear marks, does not mean that they are a conservative, besides there are other types of earmarks that often are ignored. The pro-illegal amnesty of McCain would be an ear mark or pork for his wife’s company, providing both cheaper labor and an increase in her consumer market. The so called “Clean Elections” should be called “Incumbent Protection Act”, helps McCain keep his large war chest and minimize the ability of others to challenge him. McCain is also not above claiming others vote for pork or earmarks, just because an important bill they voted on had them inserted to either kill the bill or get them passes independent of any merit they may or may not have. McCain is more about his stay in Washington, than about the people he is supposed to represent.

    I have voted for McCain in the past, but it was never because I thought of him as a good candidate, it has always been about voting for the lesser of evils. I agree with his political grandstanding against earmarks, but I would rather he vote for earmarks than for illegal amnesty, cap & trade, against drilling for our own oil thus sending jobs and revenue overseas, ……. It is a fools mission to single out one item and use it to champion for or against something. Character does matter, but one can not determine character from a single dimension of a persons stances. McCain had great character as a military individual, but not as a political individual (why he earned the nickname Sen. Lettuce when he was claiming Americans would not accept a wage and offered to pay the wage then refused to acknowledge he lines of individual citizens lined up at his office looking to take the jobs at the wages he offered.)

    Earmarks are bad, but standing against them does not mean one is worthy of being our representatives, we should demand it from them but not use it as a sole criteria for determining their worth. Arizona is a classic example, where the RINO McCain will run on his Military history and Earmarks, in an attempt to beat a conservative Candidate that is also against earmarks but had voted for bills that contained them. McCain is attacking his Republican contender for the next election, with greater vigor and negative campaigning than he did running against Obama for president.

    Just because your chart shows McCain as not having any ear mark requests, does not mean he is or is not a man of Character that should be called a conservative. McCain stands for McCain rather than Arizona, he has never had any remorse about voting against the will of the people that elected him. McCain likes Washington and will do what it takes to stay there, his earmark stance will be used as a political justification while he talks around his personal track record of pushing for things that do grave harm to our nation (illegal amnesty, cap & trade, anti-drilling, gang of 14, calling water boarding torture, ….)

    Earmarks are just a small fraction of what should be considered in determining an individuals character, and one that should include the why the did or did not vote for an earmark (many are voted in by default by being inserted into so called must pass bills), Single minded voting has been a destructive force to our nation for decades, as we divide individuals into groups. I have seen the polling places with individuals that have never researched a thing, they vote based on a party affiliation, sound bites from the media, race, gender, how individuals look or sound, what handouts they hope to obtain, ….

    Do not be a singled minded fool, assuming that you can identify a conservative by their earmarks. There are some that are so outrageous with earmarks there may be no question that they have no ethics, but that should also show up in many other areas related to that individual. Just as being against earmarks does not assure that the person is an ethical individual that should be elected, it takes more than one marker to determine a persons character.

  • Pizza_God

    Ron Paul is one of my political hero’s, but I disagree with him here because of the exact reason Erick just stated.

    Kenny Marchant of Texas CD24 has taken the pledge, I have endorsed him in the election today.

  • partyless1

    You should modify step 1, as it takes the blame corporations and ignore the rest stance. While corporations are being demonized for their contributions, we see the OZ theme of pay no attention to others behind the curtain. You need to include the unchecked sponsors such as the UAW and SEIU that never seem to be questioned for their purchasing of politcal hacks with funds taken from the workers even if they disagree.

    We either limit or or limit none, to help keep the playing field equal.

    Some corporations are created by individuals pooling their resources, so that they can have a representative voice in Washington that they may otherwise be denied. Take the NRA, and GREEN PEACE for example; made up of individuals that on their own could not go to Washington or help fund research and other items to help make their personal stances, joining forces with other like minded individuals to assure their representation by pooling resources.

    There is a place and there will always be abuses, the biggest threat is when the balance is shifted by making the playing field different for different groups. If we limit one, they all need to be limited; if one is not limited all others need to not be limited.

    I would like to see limits, but often limits are manipulated by the political hacks in Washington, to help them with their personal ambitions despite the will of “We The People”.

  • BA Cyclone

    I recall in a class I took ago, we covered the ‘definition’ of ethical behavior.

    Being unethical is about more than doing things that are unethical – it also includes doing things that MAY be ethical, but can easily appear to be unethical. Especially in a different light.

    I think the same kind of principle applies to earmarks. Whether or not it actually “increases spending” by the narrowest of definitions, it is the appearance of said earmarks that matters.

    Compared to a more strict definition of fiscal conservatism, it seems hard to call yourself one while also participating in the earmark campaign.

  • BA Cyclone

    I recall in a class I took ago, we covered the ‘definition’ of ethical behavior.

    Being unethical is about more than doing things that are unethical – it also includes doing things that MAY be ethical, but can easily appear to be unethical. Especially in a different light.

    I think the same kind of principle applies to earmarks. Whether or not it actually “increases spending” by the narrowest of definitions, it is the appearance of said earmarks that matters.

    Compared to a more strict definition of fiscal conservatism, it seems hard to call yourself one while also participating in the earmark campaign.

  • Common_Cents

    I’d like to ask any ear marker who poo poo’s that its chump change.

    Is it ok to cheat just a little bit on your spouse too?

    It’s all about the principle, stupid.

    And who says hundreds of millions, a few billion isn’t a lot of money? Multiply that by hundreds in congress and you have huge money. Disgusting. If you don’t think it is a lot of money you should be voted out and sent home.

  • Common_Cents

    Wonder how the list might change with a per capita calc.

  • jayburd

    Like say, the Constitution? Ths is an EXCELLENT LITMUS TEST! Thank-you Erick, I had almost given up hope.

  • jayburd

    earmarks are a way to buy your vote with your money after an 80% skim off the top. They hide the skim by deficit spending. To blackmail you with your own money they threaten to withhold funds if you don’t comply with Federal standards by say, passing a seat belt law or a drinking age law or a helmet law or building codes etc,etc. Threatening or bribing state government to influence legislative votes to comply with federal policies should be grounds for lawsuits.

  • ss396

    is what it was called during the murderous Stalin and Mao years. I call it anathema to see that psyche penetrating even down to the County Commissioner level. Yeah, he’s a Republican – but it’s a despicable practice anyway, and far too evocative of the Soviet era.

  • bomackin

    As I understand it, FairTax is the only way to get rid of the IRS, so yes, I’m all for the FairTax over and above all other taxes.

    My son did raise this question about the FairTax, though. Who would be responsible for assessing whether people really paid taxes for consumption of goods?

    Like, is there a way that they can claim business expense necessary for production when that expense is not necessary?

    Would a new ‘pseudo IRS’ arise due to these ethical issues?

    Would it be better since only businesses would be regulated in any way by this IRS stand in?

    …….

    Ah, but the earmarks issue, as I hear it from ourcaucus.com, is more complex than merely spending more money.

    As I hear it from ourcaucus.com, the real problem arises when

    a) funds from earmarks make their way through the organization for which they are earmarked

    b) some are set aside for lobbyists who lobby for such earmarks……

    c) the lobbyists then spend some of their lobbying funds (which, keep in mind came from tax payers initially), and do things for congressmen…….

    You know, things like helping get them elected maybe?

    …….

    If the dems are doing this and the republicans don’t, then the republicans can’t get elected UNLESS there is a way for them to get the big picture across to the public.

    Somehow it seems strange to me that more of the congressmen aren’t trying to clarify this whole issue.

    I’m also a bit puzzled that blog entries which make their way into Erick’s daily emails don’t address this.

    ………..

    So am *I* missing something here, or are conservatives missing something here?

    At this point, I’ve not seen a major conservative voice willing to speak up and address the issues alleged at ourcaucus.com.

    ………..

    With the rising numbers of lobbyists growing all of the time, it certainly seems to me that the claims at ourcaucus.com ARE THE ISSUE.

    And this post is as close as I’ve seen anyone come to admitting that alleged fact.

    Help! Please?

    Isn’t it about time we hit the nail on the head instead of hitting around the nail?

    If you want us to support DeMint’s hand picked men and/or support ‘the cause’ via other actions which you suggest, then don’t you think we should all be looking at the whole picture instead of just part of it?