The Good and Bad of Earmarks

Everyone will read this and find something to disagree with. That is because I always have an opinion that falls into the middle ground. It sucks thinking with my eyes open.

I’ll start out saying that I love the idea that earmarks will be banned. I’d say something like, “Those pansies proposing it are putting a two year-expiration date on it!” except that I actually admire that. It is the right thing to do. It’s what should have been done with healthcare so when the system fails like Medicare and Social Security, we can just not renew it. So if this passes, we’ll have two years to see how no earmarks works. And if it’s fantastic, we can keep it.

I’m also pleased that we’ve heard none of this “Cut out earmarks by the year 2070” garbage like those idiots on the Debt Commission who will be praised by their grandchildren.

A few valid points have been brought up, however. The first is that earmarks total less than a half a percentage of the total budget. Hard to believe, but there the stats are. The second is that by taking away earmarks from Congress we give more spending power to the Executive branch. These are both issues that make me want to keep earmarks where they are.

Earmarks might be a decent check against wild Presidential waste, but as stated above, it’s less than one percent of the total budget. Considering that the current President has been appointing people withOUT the advice and consent of Congress, keeping some power might be in your best interest.

However, my final position is pulled by other considerations. What really needs to happen is that we should tell ALL our lawmakers to wake up and start doing their jobs. Congress, your job is to MAKE LAWS. Not spend money. Mr President, your job is to EXECUTE THOSE LAWS, which includes the money thing. So the ban on earmarks makes the most sense Constitutionally.

For everyone who is concerned about Presidential waste, read your American history and figure out that the treasury should NEVER be as big as it is. The opportunity for waste is greatly increased the further from the original intent we go. Principles of liberty don’t get old and die, they remain in force forever. Once earmarks have been taken out of Congress’s hands, the next step will to hire a President who will stay within his bounds and cut out the potential for waste. That will require a loss of power, but Congress is willing to do it, why shouldn’t the President?

Finally, I think the most important consideration is the unstated rule of Congress which is that if I can put earmarks that benefit you in my bill, you’ll vote for my bill no matter how wrong you think it is. Earmarks may feel like they’re about money but really it’s a tool for pushing one’s agenda. It’s wrong and it creates agreement out of greed instead of creative collaboration.

Let’s return to real leadership, real liberty, and let’s do it before we spend ourselves into oblivion.

I'm Concerned. Are You?

I’m very concerned. It seems like every day something weird is happening in my country’s government. I mean, weird stuff happens all the time, but this is beyond what we’re used to. Here’s what I’m talking about.

Rep. Rangle wants a free pass on a severe ethics violation. If you don’t want to be known as corrupt, Mr Rangle, don’t act corrupt. Instead of apologizing for your illicit activities and paying the price, which very well might be the removal of your power, you “cut a deal,” thereby spreading your corruption to the entire ethics committee. Richard Nixon welcomes you home.

President Obama “appoints” the new health czar. Normally these appointments go through Congress, but he bypasses that little tiny step. “The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.” His reasoning was that Republicans would stop the nomination. First, that makes no sense because Republicans are the minority. Second, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Find someone everyone can be pleased with.

Elena Kagan is even considered as a Supreme Court Judge. First of all, never been a judge. She’s the Dean of a College and the Inspector General. When John Roberts was nominated there was concern because he’s supposedly a conservative, but at least he stated that his job was to be an “impartial umpire.” Kagan has stated that she will rule however she wants. Law Schmaw. I know we don’t like to say this, but that opinion is wrong.

Democrats take the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. They fail to repeal both No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act, which they screamed so loudly about during Bush’s reign. This became a lot less surprising when they included features in the Healthcare bill and in the Financial Reform bill that involve more privacy intrusions than the Patriot Act ever had. Outstanding, people! You’ve proven that all you want is power.

Maybe it’s a scratch-my-back issue. If you don’t repeal the crap the Republicans passed, then they agree not to repeal the crap the Democrats pass.

The Federal government sues Arizona. This reminds me of a story. Once a man had a daughter who was raped every day for a week. On the eighth day she slapped the man who raped her. The father stood up and yelled at his daughter, “Stop that! That’s my job!” I just don’t see how the Federal government can react in any way but to hang its head in shame for failing so dramatically. They are supposed to be the pillar of our freedom, a body built to unify Americans under one head. Instead they are acting in the most divisive way possible to prolong the problem without a solution.

Former Illinois Governor Blogojovich is being tried for corruption. While it is very important that he receive a fair trial and that he be allowed to present his defense, there’s no doubt what the verdict should be. Fair doesn’t mean he has a 50/50 shot of getting off, it means he’s treated with dignity as he goes down the toilet. Power and money seems to buy a lot of strange verdicts.

I am very concerned. I have been for a while, but the irresponsibility is reaching a very shrill pitch. I want us to find solutions, even if it means not advancing agendas. I, along with 86% of Americans who disapprove of Congress, am feeling very frustrated.

Take a Bullet for Obama

Obama is no stranger to threats. Early on after the election the FBI stopped an assassination plot. He’s a target: he’s Black; he’s pushed a very radical agenda; he’s against gun control. The man needs protection. And I contend that the best protection would come from conservatives.

You might think, “What? Surround him by the very people more likely to bump him?” Well, you’ll have to clear your head a bit. I dislike him but I’m not going to kill him. In fact, I’m making the case that the most politically expedient thing for me to do is to protect his life with all I’m worth. Why?

Think about it for a moment. The minute Barack goes down, what’s the first thing that happens? Eloquent Joe becomes President. That would be a move even many Obama fans would find unpalatable. It would be a big f.ing deal, for sure. Then the guy would have to pick a vice. You can’t trust Cheney's prodigy to say two brainy sentences together, you think he’s going to do the nation justice with his selection? Obama’s political enemies would stand together to protect him with this at stake.

But aside from the amusing, what would the fallout be from an Obama assassination? We see today here and there the racism flag waved at political dissidents for daring to disagree with a black man. It’s transparently foolish but in the emotional wake of such an event, that idea would gain ground indefinitely. If the President is assassinated, racial tensions would explode, and there are those poised to take advantage of such a situation. The blame game begins. Suddenly the trail goes: Racist >> Disagree >> Plot >> Kill. You and I and anyone else standing firmly in the “disagree” category finds themselves trapped between Racist and Plot, one step away from being killers ourselves. Blame. Politicians you cannot trust will use blame to set traps that ensure anyone who opposed him will be silent or silenced.

Now Obama goes down as a hero, the first black man to rise to the nation’s top office, and racist white men destroyed him for it. He’s a martyr, a magnificent angel who died for the people. His agenda isn’t radical anymore, it’s equity and justice and anyone who thinks otherwise can see the paragraph above. Remember how Michael Jackson went from the chairman of the Freaky Monster Society to beloved father and respected inspiration in one night? That’s all it takes, and suddenly it’s politically incorrect to say anything about him other than what a beacon of divine light he is. You think Obama receives no media criticism now, just wait until his death.

The aura of martyrdom and the upwelling of emotion resulting from it will be so magnificent that Obama’s ghost could rest assured that his agenda won’t die with him; rather it will swell. People would scramble to take his place, to pick up where he left off, to make sure his legacy would not die. This emotion will be no more than a tool of the most diabolical politicians. These devious politicians will play on sincere emotions to get their way and increase their power. Important rights will cease to have meaning, and his political adherents would be glorified.

Proponents of this administration would have very little to lose from the death of President Barack Obama except a good speaker. One wonders if the more treacherous-minded do not recognize the advantage provided by his race, youth, and charisma.

That is why I say he couldn’t do better than to have a troop of Conservatives serving as his body guards. They aren’t going to touch him. They aren’t going to let anyone else do anything to him. They have too much to lose if something goes wrong. The best thing, right now, for those who love small government and interpret the Constitution narrowly is to make sure that the current serving president lives a long and healthy life. The alternative would be disastrous.

I pray I never have to say, “I told you so.”