Fear not. This is not spam promoting a new holiday dance band.
It is the product of a sleepless night of internet musing provoked by Erick Erickson’s post urging Americans to scrap Obama’s budget-busting tax deal. Erickson offers a critical question for Republicans who’ve gathered around the fake yet lavishly decorated White House Christmas Tree.
Note: Senator Mitch McConnell’s office is now doing a full court press saying that the tax breaks for particular companies are not ‘earmarks.’ Friends, an earmark is not necessarily spending money, but is a line item put into legislation or a committee report without full congressional review typically from one member of Congress on behalf of a lobbyist or donor to benefit the lobbyist’s client or the donor. How the hell is a line item related to Starkist Tuna in American Samoa carved out just for them not an earmark for one of the major employers in Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district?
Here’s another way of posing this excellent question: how in the Sam Hill does this government blend of political budgetry differ from the crony corporate deal carved out by imperialists for the British East India Company? You know, the deal that motivated patriots to act on December 16, 1773?
Like most Americans I’m motivated by stories of revolutionary founders. Like many I really haven’t studied the significance of those stories beyond what I read in grade school textbooks.
Erick’s post prompted me to take a closer look at the Boston Tea Party. And from what I’ve found, that powwow was not simply a protest against a tea tax. It was an act of open defiance against a tax exemption granted to a corporation favored by King George III.
Fishing around the web I found an interesting article by tax historian Joseph Thorndike. I have no idea what Thorndike’s politics are (whether he’s a registered Democrat or Republican). Frankly I don’t give a dang. What he says is worthy of attention alongside Erickson’s provocative post.
Musing on what these men have written makes me think that today’s Tea Party Patriots will either broaden or discredit the movement before the end of the year. Much hinges on what happens between now and December 16, 2010. Will the Senate kick off the winter saturnalia with a new dance band?
I’d much rather celebrate the holidays with Paul Revere & the Raiders.
Cross-posted at RedState.com and FireDogLake.com.
Comments
I think it won't take long for the R's and the newly elected Tea Congresspeople to find their slips are showing on the earmarks issues. Sheesh. Dude who got elected to 3rd CD here campaigned on no earmarks. The water conservancy manager tried to tell him that projects like repairing our dam so it doesn't BUST are funded through earmarks....man hardly seemed to notice. Ah, well.
by we are stardust on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 6:25pm
Oh the repubs will just say:
Oh that is not an earmark. That is a tax break that will create jobs.
Then FOX will just come up with some new word through its corporate repub pollster and that will be that.
The repubs don't care anymore about truth, not even the appearance of truth.
by Richard Day on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 7:37pm
Looks like leaders throughout Washington are saying that. And Erickson's post bears witness to the fact that some conservatives are challenging them.
Some days it seems The Truth isn't a member of any political party.
Man, this post needs some music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsMQbedCZj0
by Watt Childress on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:56am
Hey Stardust. Here's how I see it. When upkeep of existing infrastructure is funded through earmarking, it means funders are subservient to the political hierarchy to provide for priority public needs. It shouldn't work that way. Federal revenues should be pushed down to the state and local levels based on formulas that clearly quantify those needs, not a politicalization of the budget process.
With respect to transportation, a huge amount of money is earmarked for big new projects while the needs of existing infrastructure are underfunded. This is partly because lobbyists for the highway contractors, freight companies, and real estate speculators have established a wheeler-dealer relationship with earmarkers.
Hopefully your dude in office will reform public works budgeting to put needs ahead of greed. I believe there's a chance of that happening if a left-right coalition of citizens applies two fisted pressure.
by Watt Childress on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:00pm
If one looks at who is getting the big money from earmarks , military contractors are the biggest beneficiary. Next in line are certain universities. After checking out what the money was going to in those universities, I learned that there was a preponderance of research related to defense and science projects that pertain to advancing the nation as a whole. There are regional projects in the mix too but most of them encompass problems beyond any one states' concern. So the process of "pushing Federal revenues to the state level" might address whether a bridge gets replaced or not but doesn't address what most of the money is being spent upon.
I agree that more transperancy is needed and that the way earmarks are developed is certainly an oppurtunity for corruption. But the notion that getting rid of them and tax expenditures as such will derail the corporate influence of politics is naive. What Erikson is really saying is that no good can come from the Federal government investing in specific projects. But he doesn't quite put it that way. His lack of transpearancy makes all his more-fiscally-conservative-than-thou routine sound disingenuous.
by moat on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:52pm
Getting rid of earmarking doesn't mean we abandon everything that's currently funded in that manner. It just means we find another way of budgeting that's not closely tied to political position.
Pushing money down from the federal to the state and local levels is a good idea in terms of public works. I've watched how those funds are squandered on new pet projects. But the federal government needs to set standards so that the problem isn't perpetuated by state and local governments. Use that money to leverage reform so it goes to priority public needs.
You're right on the money with military contractors. And you're also right that getting rid of earmarks won't derail the corporate influence of politics. But it would add momentum in the right direction.
by Watt Childress on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:49pm
The wait is over. Cue the Lobbyists. Lie down with dogs, wake up surrounded by dogs.
by moat on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:13pm
That link doesn't work on my computer. I'd like to read it if you don't mind sharing it again. Thanks.
by Watt Childress on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:46pm
That link just plain doesn't work. Let me try just giving the address:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR201012...
by moat on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 8:17am
Good article. Thanks. It names some of the new dogs/cogs in the same old Washington kennel/machine.
Will reformers on the right call out this hypocrisy? Some lead voices at RedState are doing so. Several days ago Erickson posted a front pager calling out Michele Bachmann for her flip-flop on earmarks. Bachmann responded with a blog defending her position. I was among a number of folks who countered with reasoning she should appreciate.
No doubt Republicans are intimate with the Washington machinery. Many who championed change during the campaign are now getting cozy in their status-quo digs. I suspect they'll seek to distract their base by attacking Obama the opportunist left-wing socialist (even though he abhors the left, from what I've seen).
The same dynamics dominate Democrats. Those most familiar with the routine assert -- in essence -- that we all have to sleep with dogs. The experts who know the kennel's inner-workings are always here to tell us which dogs are better under the sheets.
by Watt Childress on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 3:26pm
We hang out on different sides of the aisle but I take your point regarding Democrats and the "business as usual" nature of legislation.
While I admit I cited the article as evidence of hypocrisy, what mostly caught my eye in the article was the tenor of schadenfreude displayed by the Washington Post. It seems there is an element in the press that has a non-partisan distaste for claims of moral superiority.
by moat on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 4:43pm
Interesting. I'll have to think about that.
On first blush, I'd say news stories that pivot on issues involving moral activism do tend to be treated with disdain by the mainstream press. It could be our pop culture has come to accept moral detachment as a prerequisite for credibility, maybe even on the op-ed page.
These days feel like I'm in the aisle fussing at folks on both sides. When my wife proofread my latest column, she said "you preach!" She meant it as a compliment. Maybe that's why I'm only published in smalltown newspapers.
by Watt Childress on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:53pm
There is a lot of opinion penned (on both sides) that hopes to gather the strength of moral gravitas so I am not much convinced by judgments about pop culture made by anybody.
But if there was an agreement on both sides to talk about things without recourse to such rhetoric, well, that would, could, be interesting.
by moat on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 7:20pm