dagblog - Comments for "Building a bridge to earmark reform"

Plus I'm finding some good

Watt Childress — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:05:37 +0000

In reply to So, how did this play over on

Plus I'm finding some good things to read over there. Like this one, from redstate's editor.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/10/why-does-tim-geithner-still-hav...

http://www.redstate.com/wattc

Watt Childress — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:37:23 +0000

In reply to So, how did this play over on

http://www.redstate.com/wattchildress/2010/11/08/building-a-bridge-to-ea...

Note that the sole comment/recommend at redstate echoes a point you made here -- "that earmarks should have some sort of relationship to the ostensible purpose of the bill into which they are inserted."

Bridge-building, one wee post and comment at at time.

Thanks or asking, KGB.

So, how did this play over on

kgb999 — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:26:26 +0000

In reply to Building a bridge to earmark reform

So, how did this play over on redstate?

I'd like to believe such

Watt Childress — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:49:21 +0000

In reply to I'd vote for the writer of

I'd like to believe such thinking might help inform political discourse, even embolden folks to consider candidates who aren't members of a particular party or who don't sport a certain political label.

Back in the 90s I did run for office, in a declared race for county commission in east Tennessee. Lost by 12 votes in the Republican primary. Felt bad for a week, but then got back on the horse and spearheaded a county-wide referendum opposing a redundant half-billion-dollar road project. The project was rejected by citizens. We won by one vote. Last I heard, segments of that boondoggle were being built anyway.

We concur on the need for

Watt Childress — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 01:24:56 +0000

In reply to I totally agree. But there is

We concur on the need for campaign reform. At the going rate it may be like pulling teeth just to get disclosure of corporate donations. Yet we should keep trying.

From what I've heard, the practice of earmarking does have a political tit-for-tat influence on public policy. It enables lawmakers in positions of power to dole out appropriations as part of back-room deals on other votes. If you want this earmark, I need your compliance on that certain piece of legislation.

Reforming this practice is indeed a baby step relative to the distance we have to travel. But it's a step we may be able to take in the near-term.

I'd vote for the writer of

artappraiser — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:38:17 +0000

In reply to If history repeats itself,

I'd vote for the writer of this comment anyday!

Hats off to Ms. Applebaum.

Watt Childress — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:08:58 +0000

In reply to Anne Applebaum has an article

Hats off to Ms. Applebaum. Thank you, David, for flagging her article.

"Despite its profligate spending policies of the past decade, the Republican establishment attached itself to this year's wave of anti-establishment resentment and must at least pay lip service to its goals."

Will progressives who are equally resentful of establishment Dems plow common ground with conservatives? America needs to recycle the left-right coalition that challenged MFN trade status for China, WTO, and the bailout of Wall Street. Earmark reform is a policy area that could strengthen our working relationship.

If history repeats itself,

Watt Childress — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:17:01 +0000

In reply to It is going to be interesting

If history repeats itself, they'll be plenty of crazy talk and posturing. And Democratic bloggers will spend a good deal of time making fun of the crazies. Politics will continue to devolve into goofy sports and entertainment.

If history repeats itself, politicians will use the umbrella cover of "roads and jobs" to hand out dollars for new sprawl-driving pork projects while neglecting the basic upkeep of our transportation network. "Shovel-ready" will continue to be the mantra for boosting employment (never "blackboard-ready" or "stethoscope ready"). Presumably, bus drivers and highway patrolmen who are out-of-work will cheer because they can sign up for the road crews.

I'm eager to be part of a new story, one where "conservative" truly means conserving resources and "progressive" doesn't rubber-stamp every parochial notion of "progress."

I totally agree. But there is

kgb999 — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:56:09 +0000

In reply to The big blunt instrument

I totally agree. But there is a big difference between money spent on politics and appropriations. Unless we do away with taxation and governmental programs, it is not physically possible to "take money out of politics" entirely.

There is always going to be some mechanism by which law makers apply the taxes collected to implement legislation and benefit their taxpaying constituents. It seems like the purpose of earmarks is to implement a general appropriation into specific actionable projects. I don't see this as an inherently bad thing. (the more I think about it, I really like the idea of random GAO audits of recipients though!).

So while I am strongly supportive of the idea of reforming the process, I think it is also a bit of a red herring in terms of what you seem to be trying to address. I think the key to reducing electoral corruption lies in addressing campaign funding. Earmark abuse isn't really at the heart of it. Ultimately earmarks come at the end of a process ... we're getting screwed on policy long before it falls to the earmarking stage. Earmark reform kind of feels like addressing petty shoplifting when the big problem is grand larceny.

Anne Applebaum has an article

David Seaton — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:27:50 +0000

In reply to Building a bridge to earmark reform

Anne Applebaum has an article in the WaPost that compliments your piece rather well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR201011...