Replies

Ah, now this is what I came to Free Republic for -- a good, old-fashioned argument! Re: your points:

"By ruling out earmarks Ms Irey is not only completely and totally unrealistic, but marks her off a short list from national Republicans" ... If she's unrealistic to rule out earmarks, then so are an awful lot of other conservative Members of Congress, notably those who now make up the bulk of the Republican Study Committee. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Jeb Hensarling of Texas have been leading the charge on earmark reform, and perhaps you'll remember this was an issue that was pushed hard back in the January/February timeframe, when John Shadegg was running for Majority Leader?
"She should have gone after another of Murtha's major weaknesses, like he's too old and senile" ... First off, I happen to like the way she's going right at what is perceived to be Murtha's biggest strength. It's ... well, it's positively Rovian! She's apparently made the decision not to concede the point, and to at least make Murtha defend his largesses over the years. Second, I actually think your suggestion here, that she go after him for being "too old and senile," is dangerous -- according to the Almanac of American Politics, this district is populated by a large group of seniors. They could (and probably would) take offense at an attack on Murtha just because he's old. And don't ever forget how Ronald Reagan disarmed Walter Mondale's attacks on Reagan's age -- one good one-liner, and that attack is toast.
"[E]armarks for unfunded defense requirements are no more wasteful than any other defense program" ... I find it hard to believe that earmarks in any area of government are not more wasteful than that spending which has been vetted properly and fully by the Administration and two committees of the Congress -- how could it not be? The whole point of having authorizing committees and appropriations committees is to make sure that the programs that get authorized and funded are those which a significant number of Members of Congress have investigated, discussed, and vetted; earmarks by definition totally bypass that process, and allow a single Member to insert into legislation a mandate that certain funds be spent on programs that have not been vetted appropriately. There's just no way earmarks aren't any more wasteful than other defense spending programs. And just to be clear -- you're not suggesting that there's no waste in the Defense Department, are you? There's been wasteful spending in the Defense Deparment ever since the Revolutionary War! Why would the Defense Department be immune to the wasteful spending practices found in every other department of government?

Irey's a loser. She is looking for votes not from you or the other radicals in the Republican party but from ... ahem ... Murtha's district. She is a dumb politician and has made her play. She's dead. Even Republicans will vote for Murtha now.

Second, your entire analysis is all speculative and not based on any fact. You're guessing. "I find it hard to believe that earmarks in any area of government are not more wasteful than that spending which has been vetted properly and fully by the Administration and two committees of the Congress -- how could it not be?"All government programs have a government program manager, and have to abide by all the laws and regulations of the others. Meaning, if an earmark happens then some service branch lifts it's eyes and offers thanks for a couple million they weren't expecting, and then assigns a program manager who manages the money as aggressively as he does the other funded programs he has for the same year. You and the others are acting like the program is managed out of the congressman's office by an intern. No.

The list of good ideas for DOD that have come out of the earmark process is too long. Weapons, etc. Some of the critical defense material that DOD doesn't think troops need comes through earmarks -- personal armor, the special protection for humvees -- sometimes these have been rammed down the DOD's throat by congress. Yes, they are earmarks. They sure do get some review on subcommittee and committees, but the requriement is identified by, and promoted by, someone in congress. So it's an earmark.

Sheesh. You really have no idea. You think all earmarks are "bridges no nowhere" or "$300 hammers." Do a little homework. Call your own congressman and see if he issues a list of earmarks for each year.

Senator Inouye of Hawaii (not my Senator) puts out a press release every year of his earmarks. Needed materiel for the Pacific Fleet; base housing at Pearl that has been ignored for years by the Navy; new technology for the fighting warriors of SOCPAC.