Issues: Earmarks: Deeds Must Match Words
March 1st, 2010
In recent days, the topic of earmarks has been prominent in the campaign for the Third Congressional District seat. At Saturday’s “LiberTea” forum, I was the only candidate to stand up and denounce the “Favor Factory” that has become a corrosive influence on our government and eroded public trust in their representatives.
Too often, candidates repeat taking points, decry out of control spending and tell you they will cut the budget. But they never offer specific points in our budget process that need reform. When they get to Congress, they settle into the Washington way and we find out how empty their promises can be. In order to get their earmark, politicians must support the earmarks of other members. Favors are traded and the process ends up placing Chickamauga on the same level as Nancy Pelosi’s mouse protection plan. At the end of this game, the American people end up the losers.
Last week, I published an editorial following the assertion of one of the candidates that he refused to pledge to work for earmark reform. In response, he seemed to declare that some of the vital national priorities here in the Third District will only be funded on earmarks rather than through the efforts of a representative who will argue their importance and gain funding through the correct budgetary process. On this point, we strongly disagree. I have every confidence that the Chickamauga Lock, the Tennessee River and the critical facilities at Oak Ridge and Y-12 easily rise to the level of priority and will receive funding based on merit as we present the case to the Congress.
Today, Erick Erickson and our good friends over at RedState.com have a strong editorial on this issue. In his column, Erick states, “For self-described conservatives, it is easy to be pro-life, pro-troops, and pro-tax cuts. In most races, that is not how you separate the wheat from the chaff. You separate them on the basis of their belief in limited government—in short, do they think that government should do stuff. Period. And there is no better bellwether of politician’s proclivities toward limited government than whether they request and defend earmarks.”
I hope you will take a moment to read the article. There is no question that we need reform and we need to send representatives to Congress who have demonstrated a commitment to that reform. It is the only way we will return fiscal sanity to our government. In this case, the Washington way is not good enough.
Posted by Robin Smith
1 Comment(s):
Leave a comment:
P.O. Box 23805 · Chattanooga, TN 37422 · Phone 423.305.7744 · Fax 423.208.9907
March 1st, 2010 at 6:20 pm
I am against earmarks, but unless all political parties cease the activity, the one that does so unilaterally will be at a distinct disadvantage. Earmarks are not a means to help the average working class American, but are obviously a means to help the politician who uses them to his or her advantage. Unless earmarks are outlawed by all parties, they will never end. The dollar values may be small, but the trust value is even less.