I don’t defend earmarks..but amnesty is a clear threat to our country. Dems will have permanent majority and it will reward criminality.
I agree. My attitude about earmarks is that some are wasteful, but many are worthwhile and provide funds for projects smaller areas could never afford. And, since (before Obama at least) they usually run around $30 billion in a $3 trillion+ budget, they are a tiny amount to receive so much loud attention.
They're a cheap applause line, while few dare mention entitlements where hundreds of billions are spent on several different programs. And it is well known that Medicare and Medicaid fraud cost more each year than all the earmarks.
But they have become a very popular cheap applause line, so we'll continue to hear it unless someone is brave enough and capable enough to put it in context.
Indeed, that expectation became reality. the National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse cost about $44 billion each year
http://www.rxmt.org/archives/documents/MedicaidandMedicareFraud-Waste-AbuseProgram.pdf
“I don’t defend earmarks..but amnesty is a clear threat to our country. Dems will have permanent majority and it will reward criminality.”
++++++++++++++++
Right - important to keep focused on the vital, urgent issues at hand.
There are some distractions that Hayworth brings to the table. I must say, using a PAC as a bit of a piggy bank for your wife does bother me. I hope they’ve changed their ways...Even if JD and his wife had a past conflict of interest or two (Abramoff money to his TEAM PAC or some earmarks), and face it no politician is pure as the driven snow, there’s probably 98% of the sitting RAT caucus and 1/4 of sitting Republicans (recall McCain was one of the Keating five!) that are worse. Also, the Justice Department and the FBI didn’t think JD’s issues raised enough concern to pursue.