Back in late March, I wrote a column I titled “Amusing” about the Republican moratorium on earmarks. You can read the full column HERE.

I wrote at that time:

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?

So here it is late August, and the Great Falls Tribune is catching up to that story with a story of their own with the headline, “Rehberg’s earmark ban: stunt or reform” by a reporter named Elizabeth Bewley from the Tribune Washington Bureau. The article does not appear to be on-line yet.

Since it’s hardly “new” news I won’t spend much time on it.

Maybe the earmark ban is a political stunt to get votes (it appears to be working as the Democrats may lose the majority in the House and maybe the Senate in November) but this is hardly the first time it was tried. It was first used as a campaign stunt way back in 2006 by candidate Jon Tester. We all know by now he was caught on tape saying at an October 9, 2006, PBS debate in Bozeman, “I don’t support earmarks, period.” A few seconds later, he added, “I’m not for earmarks.”

Ms. Bewley failed to do the research and did not find that piece of information, though.

Bewley did grab a quote from Tester’s mouthpiece who said, “Jon does not support an earmark moratorium because it rings hollow as nothing more than a stunt that does not save taxpayers a single dime, and will mean fewer investments are made in Montana.”

One thing Tester’s mouthpiece and others on that side of the fence cannot talk their way out of is the fact that our country is further in debt than we were in 2006 when Tester was running on reform, banning earmarks, doing away with the Patriot Act, and about everything else from D.C. We have a much higher unemployment rate, too. The Democratic-controlled White House, Senate and House have outspent the Republicans by three or four fold. The GOPers were routinely called out for spending money like drunken sailors. I don’t think there’s a term that describes the incredible amount of spending that has gone on since the Democrats took control of the federal checkbook credit card.

If you can think of one, please leave a comment or e-mail me.

In closing, the American people may want their politicians to actually attempt a few stunts (some without a net) to see if any of them work to bring our country back from the abyss that we are even closer to with the present majorities in the House and Senate.