MSNBC Notices Earmark Hypocrisy... of Republicans

Well played, sirs. Very well played.

Of course, those calling for an end to earmarks do in fact want an end to earmarks; but if no one else is giving theirs up, it's difficult to punish one's constituents alone.

If only there were some office holder, perhaps elected nationally, perhaps in some kind of "executive" capacity, who presided over the government and could block the excesses of congressmen with a single statement of negation. Let's call such a hypothetical power a "veto," from the Latin for "I say nay," and let us term my proposed nationally-elected presiding executive officer a "President," for lack of a better term.

Now, to take this hypothetical one step further: Let us postulate that a person running for this new office of "The Presidency" (pardon my neologism) would actually vow to exercise his nationally-bestowed authority to reform this earmark process, and end earmarks completely.

What's that you say? We do have a President, and he did in fact promise to veto a bill containing any earmarks at all?

Oh. Well then.

Thanks to DrewM again.

Bonus: Top GOP porker? Ron Paul.

Why pick on him, if I'm excusing others for going along with earmarks if no one else is willing to give up theirs?

Well:

1) He is one of the biggest yellers about small government. I certainly don't begrudge him that but...

2) Does such a yeller need to be the top Republican porker? Can't he satisfy himself with being, say, in the middle third of earmarkers?

And of course:

3) It's disappointing, because I've been told he's the Only Man Who Can Save America.

posted by Ace at 03:07 PM

| Access Comments