Redstate

so I can have a nice McCain/VP sticker. Hopefully it will read McCain/Thune or McCain/Sanford.

"Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely and who rely on you in return."-Senator John Mc

Yes, but it is both a popular issue, and a conservative issue. Moreover, the earmark issue can also be used to help Republicans regain the good government, and anti-corruption issues.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

If I understand them, earmarks redirect money already allocated to a specific department or agency from their general budget, to a specific project. Correct me if I am wrong. Eliminating earmarks would reduce the ability of government representatives (Senate, Congress or Administrative) to allocate portions of approved budget funds to specific use. It doesn't necesarily reduce the funding, and getting rid of them may not be beneficial to conservatives who have their own agenda they may want to pursue to control a democrat presidential administration, should one be elected at some point in the future.

There is a way to cut down on spending. Remove all excess social security funds from the general treasury. They should never have been there anyway. This would reduce the amount of money that the legislature has to spend (before borrowing) by a substantial percentage.

The whole discussion is going to be moot soon, anyway. As of this year the Baby Boomers can begin retiring at 62 although at a discount 20% greater then surrendered by their elders (which includes anyone retiring early in 2007). Or the first wave of BB's can wait four years and retire at the normal age of 66 (not 65) at likewise relatively lower compensation rates.

Given all that Baby Boomers have contributed to insure a good, early retirement for their elders, cutting the baby boomers benefits and increasing their normal retirement doesn't sound right, does it? Even with these benefit reductions when the BB's start retiring there will not be enough money to pay for everything. In spite of what the democrats say, if the BB's decide to retire early in large nummbers, Social Security is not solvent unless large portions of the current general tax revenue are dedicated to repaying money misappropriated by the legislature since 1963.

So, no matter what conservatives, liberals, socialists, or progressives promise, who ever is president isn't going to have money to do much of anything, period, once the BBs start retiring, and that could happen during the next presidents first term in office. Unless they have a secret plan to accelerate the demise of large numbers of the now aging baby boomers. Universal government managed health care, anyone?

But earmarks are a stepping-stone and handmaiden to corruption and general overspending (and they also encourage agencies to pad their requested budgets in anticipation of the extra earmark costs). They promote an atmosphere of license and excess in Congress. Political efforts in curbing earmarks is important step in serving notice to the political class that we are not happy with their spending habits. And, it is politically do-able, doesn't involve the complicated justifications, trade-offs and political fights that can slow down efforts at more substantial reform.

The earmarking practice much more easily attacked, for the reasons above; because the pool of beneficiaries for each earmark is usually so small, and also because of the frantic efforts to hide them from the public. It makes a much better target.

So it's an effort to change the direction of things in Washington, and to get some momentum going in the direction of reform. Obviously, if earmark reform is successful, then attention should be made (made even now) for follow-on efforts. But, I think it's an important first step, and worth supporting.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I disagree. People always say they hate Washignton and hate wasteful speanding, when its not being spent on THEM. The average American wants, if not demands, that their own representatives bring hom money for local projects. Its one the undeniable facts of our political system.

In some competetive districts the ability of some Republicans to support local projects could mean the differnece between loss or victory and majority or minority status.

It's one of those things that people like to complain about, but pork has a different definition depending on who you ask. No spending you approve of would be considered pork. Then it's just a logical expenditure of federal resources. Pork is just what you call the spending you don't approve of.

Pork has been there since the very beginning. It will be there till the very end. It is simply a fact of life given the kind of political system we have. If they can't get their pork one way, they will find another. Bringing home the pork is an important part of their jobs.

Maybe it's a winner politically, but is it going to create some wave that will sweep entitlements away? Not a chance.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

There was a WSJ poll and article by Heritage (I believe it was 2006) showing that about 40% of those polled felt it was the most important issue. This feeling continues to persist in some of today's data. It was used as a cudgel in the last round of elections. Are you saying our position should be explaining to the public this doesn't matter? Should we explain away all the corruption associated with this process as miniscule? For Heavens sake think a little; that's political suicide.

Disagree as an intellectual matter of scale when compared to the overall budget and morass of entitlements. But as a political issue, this is still a hot button issue which the electorate blames Republicans for. Heck, it can be seen as one of the main reasons we lost our majority.

Mr. McCain, et al are right to attack and frame this as an important issue. Plus they have never said this is the "be all, end all". In fact, they have said this is just the beginning.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

I have a really hard time believing 40% of the public thinks pork is a bigger problem than terrorism, health care, taxes, entitlement spending, etc. I've never seen a "most important issue" poll that shows anything remotely like this.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I don't have all day, but here are a few;
here, here, here and here (75%).

Honestly, you guys need to get out more. It just wasn’t our year? With all due respect, no wonder this party can’t win elections.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

So that I could see how the question was asked and who it was asked of.

You can head on over to RCP right now and find lots of current polls that ask respondents about their most important issue, and spending isn't anywhere near the top. It typically gets maybe 4-5% of respondents and is dwarfed by things like the economy, the war, and health care. And that would include all kinds of spending, including entitlement spending.

As to the 75% number, that's not asking the same question. Who doesn't want Congress to reduce or eliminate earmarks? I'd be happy with that. Just because a position has widespread support doesn't mean it is an important or election-deciding issue.

The position that "bugs are gross" would also have the support of a huge super majority of the population, but good luck winning the presidency on that. And good luck delivering on your promises to do something about it once you get elected.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I distrust most polls and rely on more direct evidence, in this case the voters. In this case they are only anectodal to the dialogue.

Throwing out strawmen just makes your argument weaker and frankly beclown yourself. Plus it's really not a matter of degree, it is the overall perception.

Nonetheless, we are far away from my original point, so I repeat; throwing rock at McCain for speaking out on an issue important to the public is not only destructive but out of touch. This is only one part of his fiscal platform, but again I repeat myself.

Go read his positions and come back when you are actually ready to address that point.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

Following polls was a winner a minute ago when 40% said earmarks were their #1 issue. Now, because there are lots of conflicting polls, polling is a loser and a straw man?

The votes cast in an election are great and all, but they don't tell you why they voted the way they did. You need polls for that. Or you can just insert your bloggyhorse there as a substitute for any actual evidence. I've heard 2006 blamed on everything from the internet gaming bill, to Foley, to Iraq, and everything in between. Since exit polling shows we lost independents and kept the base that would indicate that Iraq or just the traditional 6 year itch is probably a more likely explanation than earmarks.

I don't see anybody attacking McCain on anything here. He can do whatever he wants with earmarks. Shutdown the government over them (which is probably what will be required) for all I care. It's still not going to win him the election.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Perhaps you can again go back to my original point to which you commented

“No spending you approve of would be considered pork. Then it's just a logical expenditure of federal resources. Pork is just what you call the spending you don't approve of.”

That is a rather grotesque non sequitur given there is no evidence from which we can draw a logical conclusion.

Next, you can look up a definition for anecdotal listed in my follow up comment on polls.

Now, if you read the links, then it’s easy to see where this diverts from a poll into the base distasteful perceptions voters have about government. Plus, you obviously read the site. You therefore can probably count the times conservative representatives have blogged this as an issue. Thinks that’s accidental or poll driven? Hardly.

Finally, the article is about McCain’s position on earmarks which you felt a need to diminish as a issue. I don’t think Bluey listed this as his only fiscal issue, but perhaps I will read it again. The point being this resonates with voters and now we get to move onto the next issue.

By the way, do you know what Obama's position on earmarks is? Best to look it up if you don't.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

That is a rather grotesque non sequitur given there is no evidence from which we can draw a logical conclusion.

Except for the fact that politicians bring the pork home and then go home and brag about it. Then are rewarded for this by being reelected over and over again. I'd say that provides plenty of evidence that pork is popular, so long as it is being brought home to your district. That's why politicians do it. If there was some popular backlash against all pork the politicians would be punished for this behavior instead of rewarded.

This is a pretty fundamental issue when it comes down to determining whether eliminating all pork, if such a thing were even possible, would be a politically popular move we would be rewarded for, or one for which we would be punished. People like it when Kentucky doesn't get their bridge, unless they live in Kentucky or have friends and family that live there. If you were to somehow kill all pork, *everybody* would be losing projects they support. See how popular the crusade against pork is then.

The point being this resonates with voters and now we get to move onto the next issue.

And you still got no hard evidence to support that contention. There seems to be plenty of evidence to the contrary (polls). You just choose to ignore them unless they support your view... and not many do. Sure, if you feed the public the right questions "Do you like pork/earmarks/corruption," they will respond predictably. They did the same thing with CFR back when the MSM made that a big issue in 2000... which was sold in very much the same way. That does NOT mean that it really wins elections.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Go to your local representatives site, irrespective of party and search the word "earmark". I find it highly unlikely they are currently standing up and waiving the local Peanut Museum they received funding for.

It's more likely, they are positioning earmarks as detestable. In my case, the local representative lists all the ways she is attacking earmarks and co-sponsoring related legislation. She clearly expresses this as a symptom of Republican rule and lists it next to lobbying influence as a by product of residual governance. By the way, she ran virtually unoppossed last election.

Now I know this is all very specious since there are explicit examples where she directly was involved in earmarks benefiting campaign contributors. Nonetheless, it's time to end the hypocrisy and attack this one fiscal issue at a time. Perceptions and scale aside, this is a timely and wise move for McCain.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

I took your advice. Since Barney Frank is my Congressman, I picked the first random New England Republican I could think of - Chris Shays

His home page Highlights:

- the Bridgeport Emergency Operations and Dispatch Center. The center is funded in part by a $6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Justice.”

- Shays Announces Audubon Center at Bent of the River Will Receive $247,500 HUD Grant

- Shays Announces ABCD to Receive $3.9 Million Head Start Grant

Shays is bragging about bringing home money a.k.a pork because if he doesn't, he is toast. Read here for yourself:

http://www.house.gov/shays/

It's poltical science 101. BI-PARTISAN earmark reform is nice. Fiscal responsibility is good. Making earmark reform some key piece of your campaign aganda is not wise and possibily makes McCain look out of touch when there are so much bigger fish to fry.

Republicans didn't lose 2006 because of earmarks. That's just ridiculous. I get out plenty and people are concerned are war, terror, taxes, the housing bubble, the economy, credit problems, the value of the dollar, immigration, ... Only a policy wonk with his head in the sand would think John and Jane Doe is going to pull the lever for Republicans because they stopped a bridge from being built in Alaska.

Bringing money home to you district has nothing to do with corruption. Everybody wants their poltician to so it.

"Bringing money home to you district has nothing to do with corruption. Everybody wants their politician to so it."
No, earmarks breed corruption, or at the very least provides both license and opportunity for corruption. The current system of "earmarxism" makes it very easy to trade earmarks for campaign donations, electoral support from special interests, lucrative employment (post-congress), etc.

P.S. I do not want my politicians to do it, nor do most Americans.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"The current system of "earmarxism" makes it very easy to trade earmarks for campaign donations, electoral support from special interests, lucrative employment (post-congress), etc"

That's the same exact thing McCain said about campaign finance reform just substitue earmarks with "dirty money" and "lobbyists". How did that work out for McCain and the American people? He could make McCain-Feingold a cornerstone of his campaign with earmark reform. I can sense the excitement from the masses already.

How did Abermoth's influence pedaling help the democrat party in 2006? Earmarxism is an invitation to more major scandals, and corresponding electoral defeats. Earmarism is also probably involved in the current scandals brewing within the Alaskan delegation to Congress.

Moreover, the abandonment of the anti-corruption elements of the GOP brand has hurt in the ballot box. Serious earmark reform will help to heal that hurt.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Abramoff was convicted of three felonies. Please tell me how a politician seeking to legally earmark funds for a district project of crucial importance to his constitutents relates to the actions of a three time felon.

The point is corruption scandals hurt parties affected by them. They hurt the GOP big time in 2006. Earmarks provide ample and easy opportunity for influence pedaling. Congressman Young's exchange of a highway earmark in Florida (not his state), for campaign donations is a good example of how earmarism hurt the GOP.

http://alaskareport.com/news/z46364_don_young_trouble.htm

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I agree as an intellectuall matter, not as a poltical. Tou cite one poll and we don't even know how that was worded, the pollster or the context. 2006 just wasn't our year, but I suspect what the poll was talking about was corruption. People get tired of Washignton in general and Repubicans had been in control for a long time. I highly doubt that that poll questin was specifically tailored towards earmarks. Just look around, read a newspaper, look at Obama's numbers, earmarks??? No undecided voter is going to the poll and pulling the lever for earmark reform. As its been stated, everybody hates pork unless its is spent on them, then it is no longer pork. It's vital i.e. stable bridges, ethanol, miltiary bases, ...

It's a good thing but focusing on this issue in these times makes the Repubilcan Party look out of touch.