« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Chad Livengood’s piece on earmark definition a must read.

A few weeks ago I posted a piece regarding candidate demagoguery of the entire earmark issue. I predict the issue will be raised repeatedly in the Seventh Congressional District (Missouri) primary.

To that end, Chad Livengood’s piece today is a home run and must read.

Why? Because it provides at very least a glimpse into the soul of each of the perspective candidates (at least the announced ones) and how they not only view what the earmark is, but how they would approach the process if elected.

I will defer my personal feelings on earmarks for another time but leave everyone with this question: Congress abused what used to be a legitimate process and corrupted it. Does this mean the process should be reformed or completely abandoned?

Whats more, Democrats are spending in excess of four times what the GOP Congress proposed with thousands of more earmarks – yet they seem to be still riding high. Why does this issue not plague them?

COMMENTS

  • http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

    Livengood actually wrote something…good!

    Hell hath frozen over.

  • itrytobenice

    You can expect me to work diligently for Jack Goodman.

    Nodler has been a politician his entire life, beginning way back when he worked for Gene Taylor. Jack is my man.

  • bs

    * – I am torn on the earmarks thing. From one perspective, I see that the targets of the earmarks, more often than not, are wastes of taxpayer money. However: this happens to be one (maybe the ONLY one) thing that I agree with Ron Paul on – transparency. WIth an earmark, you know exactly where that expenditure is going. If money is requested under a blanket budget item for an agency, who knows where that money will be used?