There were three things that caught my eye the last few days that I had to chuckle about when I read the articles.  I had to laugh a little at the moratorium on earmarks, the reversal of a candidate’s stand on an issue just now being caught on to by the press, and the “Mal-Distribution of Income” statement by Senator Max Baucus.

Earmark Moratorium

The Republican moratorium on earmarks is a nice thought, but I wondered why they did not think of this when they were in control.  Is it another campaign gimmick or has the GOP finally decided to be fiscally conservative?

I guess the big question is will the voters take this as a good sign that the GOP has grown up and let them be players again (in the majority) or will they be banished to the corner for a few more years?

While earmarks are really not a major part of the massive Federal budget, things like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid all fall under what is called “mandatory or direct spending” and take up most of the funding (some reports say about 60%).

The major reason the Democrats won’t go a long with the earmark moratorium is because they are in charge now.  Of course, an independent person would observe that the Republicans did not spend wisely when they were in the majority – mostly because of poor leadership, which some are still in leadership positions today.  But, the Democrats have outdone them by a mile or two in spending the last couple of years.  They put the word “excessive” in the phrase excessive spending.

Any cuts to spending are good to save a dime, and even if the Democrats went along with the Republican moratorium on earmarks, it would probably be the equivalent of throwing your loose change in a cup every day.  But as you know, Congress’ lose change will fill up a cup quite rapidly and with our country mired in deep debt, most recently tripled or quadrupled by those in the majority, any cuts would be most helpful.

Against Earmarks/For Earmarks

It was amusing to read the Associated Press article about the earmark moratorium by the Republicans.  You can also be amused by reading the story HERE.

What was the most amusing to me was the way Montana’s junior U.S. Senator Jon Tester reversed his views on earmarks.  It was nothing new that the Associated Press uncovered here, as I had commented on his “change of heart” over two years ago:

During an October 9, 2006, PBS debate in Bozeman, Tester said, “I don’t support earmarks, period.”  A few seconds later, he added, “I’m not for earmarks.”
You can view the video HERE.  The comments are between 9:20 and 9:50.

The Associated Press let Tester off the hook – as is typical with elected officials they adore.  Tester said things were different now because they are “transparent.”  That’s silly.  It’s really only different now because Tester is the one getting the earmarks.  Before Tester, many elected officials listed their earmark requests and issued press releases as they made their way through the legislative process – so nothing has changed.

Tester not only embraces earmarks now (sending out press release after press release touting his work) he even keeps a tab on what he claims he’s gotten for Montana

So, I guess Tester was against earmarks before he was for them – or before he drank the kool-aid running from the fountains in the U.S. Senate.  But this is typical of Tester’s term in office so far as it has been marked with several reversals of campaign promises.

Here, take my money

According to FOXNews.com, Montana’s senior U.S. Senator, Max Baucus said:

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said.  “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America.  This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

Great googly moogly.

So I guess it does not pay to be successful these days under the new regime in Washington, D.C.  The “guberment” gonna take care of me so I don’t need to go to school, do a good job, or try to excel because they will take care of me.  If I do well in life, they will just shift my income to those who are too lazy to try.

Max Baucus has gone off the grid.