Boozman's First Big Surprise for Conservatives Who Voted For Him
Tolbert points out that John Boozman's first big decision will be who to vote for in the race for Senate Minority Leader. The Tea Party choice is South Carolina's Jim DeMint. Kentucky's Mitch McConnell is the establishment choice. DeMint wants to do away with earmarks, like House Republicans have done. McConnell is not so sure. On the campaign trail, Boozman said he was against earmarks.
Here are my predictions/answers that will annoy all sides. Boozman will vote for McConnell because Boozman is an establishment guy. The Senate will keep earmarking and Boozman will participate.
That takes care of annoying about 48% of the readers. Now let's go to the other side. There is nothing wrong with earmarks, provided they are used in the committee process and agreed on rather than inserted in legislation in the dead of night by staffers unknown or in conference. Banning earmarks shifts too much power away from the legislative branch and into the executive.
They should not earmark the absurd stuff they do, but would you feel better if an unelected bureaucrat spent the money on something absurd? If your elected rep. does not spend it, that's who will spend it. The House Republican's focus on earmarks is not statesmanship, its a cheap political stunt they are going toward because actually solving our budgetary problems are a lot harder. It will also embarrass Ron Paul, so in a way, the Establishment WANTS an earmark ban in the House. The goal is to paint Paul as a big-spender and non-team player. He IS a team player though, he's just playing for the Constitution, not the establishment.
That takes care of annoying another 48%. So what about that last four percent? Those are the "get its". I love you man!
Here are my predictions/answers that will annoy all sides. Boozman will vote for McConnell because Boozman is an establishment guy. The Senate will keep earmarking and Boozman will participate.
That takes care of annoying about 48% of the readers. Now let's go to the other side. There is nothing wrong with earmarks, provided they are used in the committee process and agreed on rather than inserted in legislation in the dead of night by staffers unknown or in conference. Banning earmarks shifts too much power away from the legislative branch and into the executive.
They should not earmark the absurd stuff they do, but would you feel better if an unelected bureaucrat spent the money on something absurd? If your elected rep. does not spend it, that's who will spend it. The House Republican's focus on earmarks is not statesmanship, its a cheap political stunt they are going toward because actually solving our budgetary problems are a lot harder. It will also embarrass Ron Paul, so in a way, the Establishment WANTS an earmark ban in the House. The goal is to paint Paul as a big-spender and non-team player. He IS a team player though, he's just playing for the Constitution, not the establishment.
That takes care of annoying another 48%. So what about that last four percent? Those are the "get its". I love you man!
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Thursday, November 11, 2010
2 Comments:
Yes but we would never be having this debate in Arkansas if Lincoln won. government never changes fast. While Boozman may not be the most ideal senator, he is worlds better than Sen Lincoln.
The talk of earmarks and whether they should or should not have a place in "civilised society" ignores larger fundamental evils which dwarf any "earmark" problems we have. With the system we have we will always have sub issues that are microcosms of the larger issues. The earmarks issue is a minor evil compared to the larger ones. That is not to say that this website ignores the larger issues, I'm just saying that the current handwringing in DC right now is pure political theatre.
Instead of debating weightier issues (such as the ones below) we are focused instead on procedureral issues like "whether to have earmarks or not."
The first issue is whether it is advisable for the feds to have the ability to tax the people directly (the founders clearly didn't believe this was wise since the power to tax is the power to destroy). This power the feds now have (and have for going on a hundred years) allows them to play social engineer, encouraging certain behaviors (not to mention favored industries) and discouraging others.
The system stays in place by buying loyalty from the underclass with such provisions as the so-called "earned income tax credit" and the "child tax credit" - which in fact in many cases pay out large refunds (welfare transfer payments) to people who do not even pay taxes in the first place. This creates a natural dependency on this sham system since the underclass naturally enjoys the welfare they receive.
With large masses of people placated with their slice of the welfare pie, the side issues of earmarks keeps the people debating their legitimacy without ever questioning the wisdom of the entire system.
The second question is whether our monetary policy should be outsourced to private banks to issue currency and credit. This in fact allows the politicians in DC to spend at will without the pain of raising taxes (instead the fed debases the currency through "quantitative easing" and other nonsenical terms meant to confuse the sheeple. The politicians keep doling out the goodies buying their way (with our money) to lifetime "elective office."
Earmarks are an issue but they are a minor evil compared to the system itself.
If those in DC complaining about earmarks are serious they will move to abolish the federal reserve and recind the 16th amendment.
That will entirely eliminate their ability to have earmarks.
I doubt that will ever happen. But I do believe earmarks will end, and soon.
How?
The soon to be worthless dollar will eliminate their (earmarks)worth.
When their money (DC politicians) becomes less useful than toilet paper, they too will be worthless, them and their earmarks.
That day is quickly approaching.
Earmarks, not to mention loyalty and fealty to the American Empire is in peril.
They will die together.
Post a Comment
<< Home