Conservative Hypocrisy on Spending and Earmarks

Hypocrisy like whoa:

Here is a list of the Senate’s 10 biggest earmark hogs, based on dollar amounts in the spending bill:

1. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.: $474 million
2. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.: $391 million
3. Mary Landrieu, D-La.: $332 million
4. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa: $292 million
5. David Vitter, R-La.: $249 million
6. Christopher Bond, R-Mo.: $248 million
7. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.: $235 million
8. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii: $225 million
9. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.: $219 million
10. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa: $199 million

But it gets better. Vitter and Grassley, like other Republicans who added earmarks to the bill, wind up voting against it because…it had earmarks.

And Republicans wonder why no one takes them seriously.

The simple solution would be to make it a rule that only politicians that vote for bills are allowed to add/keep earmarks. There’s no reason someone who voted against a bill should be able to vote against it. Republicans can’t take political credit for objecting to government spending while still gaining the benefits from the subsequent spending.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Conservative Hypocrisy on Spending and Earmarks

  1. Lets make it even easier – prohibit earmarks completely. If groups or cities/counties/states have projects they’d like additional funding aid for let them apply to the federal government for grants or loans.

    You said, “And Republicans wonder why no one takes them seriously.”

    You’re kidding right? Like the Democrats are any different?

    • You’re kidding right? Like the Democrats are any different?

      As a matter of fact they are.

      Democrats don’t run on reducing spending, decreasing the size of the government, and most importantly, earmarks being bad. So yes, that does clearly make them worse. Also, democrat’s didn’t vote against the budget because it had too many earmarks, while simultaneously putting in earmarks anyways.

      Second, as I’ve written about numerous times, earmarks are nothing but a red herring. They account for less than 1% of the budget, they don’t increase spending since the money is already appropriated, and they give local politicians more control over how money is spent in their district rather than a government agency.

      If you want earmark reform that badly, I’d suggest dividing earmark funding up evenly and allowing each politician to spend their $1 million, just an example number, however they want. Its transparent and prevents abuse.

  2. You and I can only agree to disagree on the Dems being different from Repubs. Both are lousy with rot. Or should the lack of Sen. Dodd being open and honest about the protection he provided for corporate bonus checks be overlooked for example?

    This is why I am an independent.

    Now, I’d go with your idea on each getting X amount as earmarks – provided we could agree on what is a reasonable amount. Then the local pols could suck up to their favorite pol for money.

    • Just because you can’t defend your made up assertions or counter my arguments doesn’t mean we agree to disagree. It means your bullshit got called out and you’re running scared. Hence why you tried changing the subject from earmarks to AIG’s bonuses.

      Nice try though.

      Like I said before. 95% of the earmarks debate is political fluff. At the end of the day its still only %1 of the budget.

  3. It seems to be your MO from what I’ve read of the comments of yours I have seen – which led me to read your blog initially.

    You prefer the infantile behavior of insults to discussion.

    The comment relating to Dodd was not an attempt to change the subject at all, it was to point out the idea that trusting Dems is as stupid as trusting Repubs, but hey nice try on your part to mis-characterize the comment.

    Enjoy your day, I wouldn’t waste further time on you or your blog.

    • Hey, if you can’t respond to simple argument’s thats your fault buddy. I’ve made several fact based arguments and you just ignored them and bemoaned political parties. Good for you. Cute but irrelevant.

      Try again some other time if you’re able to construct an argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s