Republican Earmarks Aren't Earmarks

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl's (R-Ariz.) rhetoric on Fox News:

"Now is not the time to be earmarking a lot of this money. People don't mind paying taxes and they understand the government needs to be run, but they hate to see their money wasted. So that's a second reason for opposing [the bill].... I suspect there will be some that vote for it. Some like these earmarks, for one thing."

Then there's Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl's (R-Ariz.) reality:

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) requested $118 million in earmarks in fiscal year 2008.

Asked last weekend about the discrepancy, Kyl told Fox News, "I would suggest that they're not earmarks under the definition, because we have a specific definition."

Look, I don't really care about Kyl's earmarks. Are they necessarily wasteful? I doubt it. Can he defend each of the various expenditures? He probably could.

But the point is this entire debate has become a little farcical. "Earmarks" have become synonymous with "waste," and that doesn't make any sense. There's wasteful spending in the regular ol' budget that isn't earmarked, and there are earmarked funds that are completely appropriate.

Kyl, like a few too many of his GOP colleagues, are playing a cheap game -- use the "e" word over and over again, with the goal of generating opposition to spending measures. There's no real analysis; it's just overly-simplified politics. Earmark = bad. Spending bill = earmarks. Spending = bad.

I liked it better when being a grown-up was a prerequisite to joining the Senate Republican leadership.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[dalegg 143]

The new trend now is for Congressmen to come out and defend earmarks. Members of both parties are actually calling them by name and defending them.

We can probably let that campaign issue die.

[I'm Gone 60]

Spending on special projects gets big headlines, but it's nothing compared to the money that has been spent on the bailouts and the "stimulus" bill.

The Titanic is going down and we are arguing over the color of the life boats.

[EasyRider 3]

Hypocrisy in the GOP? What's new? Should actually be renamed to HOP.

[HAL 9000 96]

Hypocrisy in the GOP? What's new? Should actually be renamed to HOP.

I - HOP

Come hungry, leave happy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hypocrisy in the GOP? What's new? Should actually be renamed to HOP.

I - HOP

Come hungry, leave happy.

Where you can ask for the special, Rooty-tooty, fresh and fruity, personally prepared by Sen. Craig.

[Heracles 417]

If I was poor like some I too would be cheering on earmarks paid by other hardworking taxpayers.

[HAL 9000 96]

Hypocrisy in the GOP? What's new? Should actually be renamed to HOP.

I - HOP

Come hungry, leave happy.

Where you can ask for the special, Rooty-tooty, fresh and fruity, personally prepared by Sen. Craig.

Just curious... if the earmark is destined to congressional districts that have higher per-capita incomes that vote for Republicans... its not an earmark right?

[alienlovechild 75]

Spending on special projects gets big headlines, but it's nothing compared to the money that has been spent on the bailouts and the "stimulus" bill.

The Titanic is going down and we are arguing over the color of the life boats.

Earmarks are an easy target but the public is in a daze as incomprehensively huge numbers are thrown about with the stimulus bill and the bailouts.

The GOP may have hypocrites but it would be nice if someone would ask the Democrats in charge of Congress and the White House how billions more could be spent in a panic with little to no reference to a stimulus or addressing a banking problem they've known about for 6 months.

[I'm Gone 60]

Pentagon's Unwanted Projects in Earmarks

Democrats Press Backyard Spending

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

When President Obama promised Wednesday to attack defense spending that he considers wasteful and inefficient, he opened a fight with key lawmakers from his own party.

It was Democrats who stuffed an estimated $524 million in defense earmarks that the Pentagon did not request into the 2008 appropriations bill, about $220 million more than Republicans did, according to an independent estimate

Edited March 8, 2009 by I Quit

[dalegg 143]

9000 in one bill??

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

9000 in one bill??

welcome to change

[_Simpson_ 250]

Its a problem with democrats too, why is it that the people of the left dont want to call it as it is. Its very frustrating, they just want to b1tch about the republicans.

[dalegg 143]

9000 in one bill??

welcome to change

All I have to say is the President had to be up all night long going through those line-by-line.