Donald Surber can’t seem to make a coherent argument.
His thesis is Earkmark Reform Is Good. I agree with the idea, but his argument disappears down a tangent hole:
Seeing a federal judge sentence Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., to eight years in prison may have sobered some people up. He pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion for accepting $2.4 million in bribes for steering defense contracts to MZM Inc.
What earmarks have to do with defense appropriations is a bit mysterious. We could and should prevent Bridges to Nowhere and the like, but missiles, tanks and uniforms will have to be manufactured somewhere by someone. Those somewheres will likely remain districts represented by members of the Defense Committees.
Earmarks have little to do with the Republican corruption we saw with Cunningham, Ney and such. Earmarks aren’t bribes, they are kickbacks. The representatives are elected to deliver these pork earmarks to their constituents.
I, as a Californian, am bothered by earmarks because the money is wasted in West Virginia rather than wherever it might be most useful. Earmark reform is necessary to combat waste, not corruption.
Surber continues his wrongheadedness on this point.
…most senators and congressmen are going to get elected no matter what they do.
The House changed hands not because the people grabbed pitchforks and torches to replace their Republican oppressors with Democratic oppressors, but because so many open seats without an incumbent went Democratic.
Actually, he is wrong. Democrats won at least 20 of their 30 seats (by my count) outright against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterms.
Yes, on earmark reform. No, on poorly formed argumentation.
Tags: No Comments
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.