The Helena Independent Record (IR) recently published a story that was titled, “Tip of the iceberg.” The Missoulian ran the same story with the headline, “No earmarks stance a switch for Rehberg” and the Billings Gazette titled it, “Earmarks stand a switch for Rehberg.” Whichever article you read, the basis for the story was about Congressman Denny Rehberg’s decision to swear off earmarks entirely.

You can read that IR story HERE.

The sentence, “Democratic Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester openly fight for earmarks for Montana” caught my attention and therefore is the basis for this commentary.

The reporter who wrote the story missed a very important point in his research and that was the flip-flop of Senator Jon Tester on earmarks. In fact, that flip-flop was probably one of the most shameless campaign ploys ever used by a candidate in Montana politics to get elected.

Readers may remember that Tester told a crowd during an October 9, 2006, PBS senatorial debate in Bozeman: “I don’t support earmarks, period.” Then, a few seconds later he said, “I’m not for earmarks.”

It’s on YouTube. You can view the video HERE. The comments are between 9:20 and 9:50.

Earmarks come through the Appropriations Committee. Tester was promised a seat on that committee by Harry Reid to get Tester some votes – another shameless campaign ploy – although Tester was campaigning against earmarks.

Sadly (not to mention unprofessionally) the Montana media has hardly mentioned the flip-flop (some people call it an out-right lie) by Jon Tester. Unless it is hidden in some archives somewhere, the Montana media even failed to report that Tester wrote letters requesting the earmark funding that were obtained by his predecessor according to this July 10, 2007, article in the Los Angeles Times. That was after he made everyone think that earmarks were dirty and nasty. After taking the oath (or after drinking the Washington, D.C., Kool-Aid), he decided earmarks were worthwhile.

Today, we realize how the present majority in Congress has been spending our money. Tester and Senator Max Baucus touted the fact that they had obtained funding for the Port of Whitetail and then had to backtrack on it when the national media picked up the story (as well as Montanans) and embarrassed them with the facts.

Promising fiscal responsibility when he got to Washington, Tester has failed to deliver – and that should be a story that the Montana media reports on in the next couple of years leading up to Tester’s run for a second term. It’s hard to imagine that Tester will run on the fact that he delivered earmarks to Montana after campaigning so strongly against earmarks when he was a wannabe U.S. Senator. And we can’t believe he will use the angle that federal funding is now subject to more “openness” and “transparency” when we see how he funneled millions of federal dollars into a Port to Nowhere. If he campaigns on bringing fiscal responsibility to Washington, he may just get laughed back to the farm.

So the bottom line is that Rehberg is correct in swearing off earmarks. Although it is just the “tip of the iceberg” as the IR story alluded to in federal spending, it’s a start – a start that most Americans are happy to see – and something that Tester and Baucus failed to deliver on.