Well not through the actual verdict as I was at work when it came down, but I did nod off in the middle of the MSNBC post mortem tonight. I heard a lot of words but I don't know that I've heard or read the definitive version of what really happened other than Libby is the fall guy and sure to get pardoned before Bush leaves office.
Questions I'd like answered:
Why didn't Armitage get charged with anything?
What would it take to nail Cheney and Rove as the perpetrators in the Plame outing?
And why do I have a sinking feeling that this entire sordid affair will have no effect on the way things operate in the current White House?
Ladesbet Giriş
1 week ago
2 comments:
I listened to a speech from a former congressman where he preached how bad the Republicans are in communicating there message to their base and to the public, and how the public does not know anything about what the republicans got done in the 109th congress. And while he was going on about the issues that the Republicans got done, he was also talking about the "earmarks". He explained to the conservative crowd, that "earmarks are les than one tenth of a percent of the federal budget" witch is a stunning fact that makes me wonder why this is the concern of our time in the conservative community.
As he finished his speech, I walked up to him and told him "Mr. Congressman, I might be wrong but I recall reading an article in the Wall St. Journal, about an official in CO criticizing an earmark that Sen. Allard (R-CO) inserted in a spending bill, saying that it takes away the money the State gets from the federal government." So I asked the Hon. Congressman "Is it true that when a congressman or senator inserts an earmark in a spending bill, he does not raise spending? That he just takes away the liberty from one bureaucrat to decide how to spend the money and decides himself where the money should go?"
The answer was yes.
So if earmarks do not raise spending and it's not more then one tenth of one percent of the budget, why is there so much noise about it?
Because we do not communicate, and nobody amongst us is aware of the facts. We have to start communicating, and shouldn't be afraid that someone will slam us, because if you fight back, you have a chance of winning, and if you don’t fight you don’t even have a chance of winning.
Well now, I can agree with you about the need for improved communication in government and in public life in general. However, when I think of earmarks, I tend to also think of earwigs which are nasty looking things but not deadly.
An earmark may or may not be a good thing, but we'll never know if it is buried in some other bill and nobody knows about it until it is a done deal. That's what I don't like about earmarks.
As for only one tenth of one percent of the federal budget -- I'm no accountant, but I imagine that is still a significant chunk of taxpayer change.
Post a Comment