Why Republicans Need Earmarks
A very shrewd post by Mark Schmitt explores why it is that Republicans like Lindsay Graham who profess to hate earmarks can’t actually bring themselves to give up their own earmarks; his conclusion cuts wider than petty hypocrisy:
There’s nothing partisan about earmarks — Republicans do it, Democrats do it, and if you were a member of Congress, you’d do it, too. But for the moment, Republicans are far more dependent than Democrats on their ability to take some credit for federally funded projects. In the world with earmarks, Lindsay Graham is able to stand against the president on stimulus, on the budget, on Iraq, on health care. And then he’s able to go home, cut a ribbon, get his picture in the paper, and tell everyone that he delivered the money for the new Myrtle Beach Convention Center.
But in a world without earmarks, what does Lindsay Graham bring home? Just words, and great stories about how he fought bravely against health care and economic stimulus.
Whereas a Democrat in a world without earmarks will be able to go home, ideally, and tell her constituents that she supported a popular president, that she helped rescue the economy, that she’s moving us toward universal health care.
Of course a certain number of Republicans are so solidly safe that they can get along one way or the other. But the bulk of members of congress need to be able to say to constituents and donors alike that they’ve done something. And absent earmarks, that would require members of the minority to forge some kind of compromises with members of the majority on the big issues of the day. Which is precisely what almost no Republicans seem inclined to do at the moment.
19 Responses to “Why Republicans Need Earmarks”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
As usual, pathetic Democratic messaging (with what little there is getting stifled by the Republican-wired MSM) is what lets them get away with this blatant hypocrisy.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
If the logic here is correct, and I’d be willing to stipulate that it is, wouldn’t then the logical thing to do be to make part of the earmark process be that you have to vote for the final bill? I don’t mind the idea of earmarks as porkfat that greases the wheels of government, as long as it actually helps the wheels turn.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
A very shrewd post by Mark Schmitt
I find Schmitt’s post to be about as insightful as “when it rains, you might get wet.” D’oh.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I agree. Why a guy like Graham needs earmarks is obvious. What would be enlightening isn’t a post about why Graham likes earmarks. I’d rather read an explanation for why he rails against them, even as he benefits from them. Even better would be a post that supports a conclusion other than “he’s a partisan douchebag”, even though I’m pretty sure that’s the reason.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
That one is really easy. What politician WOULDN’T have it both ways whenever s/he can get away with it?
March 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
So partisan douchebag it is.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
And real question is not why they do it, which is obvious, but why Democrats and our useless political so-called “reporters” don’t call them on it.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
But in a world without earmarks, what does Lindsay Graham bring home?
A purty mouth?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“I’d rather read an explanation for why he rails against them, even as he benefits from them…”
Republicans generally run FOR the job, AGAINST the work — for the office, in opposition to the institution: whether it is US representative, the Senate, or the whole Federal government for a Presidential candidate.
Then again — if somebody like Graham was told that the money for his state projects would be cut unless he voted for the bill itself, he’d be in a better position, politically, as The Opposition. “How dare they punish SC because I stand up to wasteful spending…”
Better to ensure that only supporters of the bill get to announce the funding (viz, Clyburn rather than Graham), but trickier to pull off in practice.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
For reporters I buy that, very much so in fact, but Democratic politicians would personally benefit from pounding these people for their hypocrisy. I think in their case it’s actually more about cowardice.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Lindsay Graham is a douchbag so all Republicans are douchbags by definition. What compelling commentary.
I guess Blagojevich being a scum eating stain on politics means all Democrats are the same. And Pelosi being a timid hypocrite is also indicative of all people who share in the disease called “Democrat.”
March 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Of course Republicans need earmarks. Republicans govern welfare states that are dependent on them for their economic lifeblood.
http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/red-state-blue-state-welfare-state-subsidizing-state/
They by and large take more money from the government than they pay in. Therefore dependent on the big government they deride. They are hypocrites, which is why none of them will refuse the stimulus money: they need it too much.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I support AL Sen Richard Shelby, a Republican (despite the fact that I’m a blue bastard) for several reasons, one of which is his ability to get earmarks for good things (the other major reason is that, well, he’s better than Sessions and I’d rather see Sessions beat).
He has twice brought home major (tens of millions) money for transit in and around the Birmingham area–both for mass transit and highways–and Birmingham has twice forfeited the money due to lack of an ability to produce a plan.
Those are “good” earmarks–major, and for a much-needed thing (especially the mass transit one).
March 9th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I see a lot of Republicans peddling the same “I hates the earmarks, but I’z just gotta have ‘em” schtick all over the press. I can’t remember seeing any other Democrats trying to sell a Senate seat. If Republicans really hate earmarks, they should practice what they preach. Or in the alternative, they should admit that earmarks are part of the budgeting process, and a transparent part at that, since they end up in an actual public document, as opposed to the money disappearing into some block grant.
Please try a little harder next time.