Posted on 01/06/2012 9:03:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
What would you call a governor’s equivelant of earmarks?
Screw the National Review for being in the tank with the Massachusetts Liberal Willard Flopney.
The NR obviously does NOT care but if we SPLIT the true Christian Evangelical Conservative vote three ways between Newt, Santorum, and Perry — we simply lose to Willard the Obama-lite Liberal.
Period.
Just in:
South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Rasmussen Reports
Gingrich 18, Romney 27, Santorum 24, Paul 11, Perry 5
Romney +3 : (
It’s not rocket science, folks.
Listened to Mark Levin last night as he explained that most Federal bureaucracies are hopelessly leftist. Congress reps who need to fund projects in their states or districts have no other way to make certain that those funds get appropriated because the bureaucrats, when they get general funding, won’t approve any of it for Republican areas.
We’d better understand that as long as there is a US government, there will be governmental pork.
It’s the nature of the beast — it’s why constituents send their congresscritters to Washington and it is what congresscritters promise their constituents to produce for them.
This is one of the main reasons that Senators rarely get the presidential nomination in the Republican Party and even more rarely are elected President from either party. I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that the first sitting US Senator to be elected President since JFK had only held office for less than one term before running. There was less time to build up controversial votes.
Perry is a flaming hypocrite on this issue.
Start up loans to your contributors and friends.
Been trying to fly below the radar as much a possible. Stuff like this sorta gets under my skin though.
Oh, dear, dear, dear. And so did the other 99 congressmen in office at that time.
NRO has been in the tank for Romney ever since he reappeared on the scene. JLo’s mantra last time around was, “I support Romney because he’s the most electable.”
How’d that work out?
It wouldn’t be surprising because earmarks were the name of the game in the nineties and early 2000s. Earmarks were how business got accomplished in Congress. It is only when the Congressmen benefit personally from earmarks that they become so insidious. It’s difficult to separate beneficial earmarks from the self-serving, without specific examples.
it’s not like Santorum was using tax payer funds to build an airport for his personal use, like that other PA legislator (can’t think of his name right now).
A quick check of Katrina Trinko’s writing seems to indicate that she’s a big Romney fan.
(Ima pissing on his grave) Murtha.
Did Santorum vote for the Bridge to Nowhere?
Why the heck aren't Romney's opponents going after all the sleaze connected to that project...?
I would add that earmarks are a legitimate budgetary tool that ensures appropriated funds are spent in the manner intended by Congress. In the absence of earmarks the decisions would be left to department heads. As you pointed out it is also by earmarking funds that the public can distinguish between reasonable and necessary expenditures and pork.
Same questions for Perry.
The question is: Why do we accept the usual nostrums propagated (as if on cue) by pundits and others each election cycle? Who says? Personally, I’d be delighted if some of the cash we send to Washington could be brought back in the form of something, truly, useful. In any event, earmarks are a red herring. Deficits and the national debt are wanting of our attention not the chump-change called “earmarks.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.