If the Tea Party does nothing else in this country but hold Republicans' feet to the proverbial fire about spending, they will have served a terrific purpose.
The first issue, right out of the chute, so to speak, is on earmarks. Republicans always hoot and holler they're for reduced and reducing spending but when it comes right down to it, they spend right up there with the best of 'em.
During this last campaign, the Tea Party members, for the most part, said they were for eliminating earmarks in the House for spending.
Good for them.
But Republicans like none other than Mitch McConnell says they serve a good purpose.
Balderdash. The bloody hypocrite.
Get this--yesterday, while making his rounds on the Sunday morning news programs, Senator McConnell said he "doesn't believe an earmark ban will actually save any money."
Right. Sure it won't.
Sadly, even Tea Party member Senator Jim Demint, who's supposed to be such a radical, is right now only pushing for a two year moratorium.
What a wienie. I want to ask him, "Senator Demint, is that all you got?"
But the real shocker for me, today, on this topic comes from the guy who's supposed to be toughest of all on budgets and cutting spending--newly elected Representative Rand Paul. Check this out: As Dave Weigel notes Tuesday for Slate, Paul suggested his stance on earmarks wouldn't be as black-and-white once he entered office: According to the Wall Street Journal, Paul told its reporter that earmarks "are a bad 'symbol' of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night."
That's positively disgusting. Paul is turning out like every other politician--something he absolutely wasn't supposed to do. In the campaign he runs saying one thing, sounding like he's going to be tough and now, after he's been elected, he says he's going to go for earmarks just like everyone else.
If I were one of his voters from Kentucky, I would be at least disappointed if not out-and-out angry.
Being from the rest of the country, I don't have high hopes for finally getting rid of earmark spending.
Or for cutting the deficit or big spending, for that matter.
Link to original post: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101109/pl_yblog_upshot/republicans-conflicted-over-earmark-ban
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
The Fed is going to take the same amount from Kentucky whether or not KY politicians try to get some of it 'earmarked' back to Kentucky--If he considers himself representing Kentucky rather than the whole of the US, it isn't necessarily hypocritical to try to steer earmark money to his state, even while trying to eliminate earmarks overall.
But earmarks are a trivial fraction of the overall budget problem, like treating a hangnail on an appendicitis patient.
oh, come on.
Sure earmarks are a trivial amount and by and large, he--Rand Paul--wouldn't be hypocritical about this but he came out squarely, strongly, vociferously against earmarks and talked big about doing away with them, man.
He's horribly hypocritical about this, now. If he hadn't said anything or if he hadn't said much, it would be different but now he's just shoving his feet squarely in his mouth.
Post a Comment