Reporklicans

I can almost handle hearing about Democrats providing federal earmarks for their states. It's a little like watching a Michael Moore film: it's still awful, but the low intelligence and corrupt nature of the perpetrators makes me more sad than angry.

But Republicans? I'd like to think that I can vote for John Doe (R-NJ) and he'll at least be no worse than the Democrats. It just ain't so: "Leading the way in New Jersey was GOP Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, who by himself brought in almost $30 million. When he co-sponsored with other lawmakers, Frelinghuysen raked in about $88.3 million."

Rodney, you charlatan, stop defrauding your constituents and switch parties already. If you can't make your intellect function properly, at least make it honest. Take Lincoln Chafee as your role model.

People may ask, "what's the big deal?" The federal budget is almost three trillion dollars, which makes the money devoted to earmarks look pretty small: about half a percent.

But in the real world, that's 14.8 billion dollars. That's more than a month's worth of the cost of the Iraq war.

Of course, when Democrats want to tell you how awful the war is, they'll tell you that it costs far, far too much. But how much is too much? Isn't actual warfighting and the security of the Middle East worth at least ten times more than the pet projects of the visionaries who gave us the Bridge to Nowhere?

Everyone will claim that the money is going to good projects. I'll even stipulate, for the sake of argument, that some of the projects are worth investing in. But that's not the question, which is, "Which of these programs should be paid for with federal funds?" The following New Jersey earmarks are highlighted in the article:

• $500,000 for background checks of youth athletic league coaches through a "Megan's Law" foundation
• $117,500 for handheld radios for the South River Police Department
• $980,000 for an environmental study on the Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex railroad line
• $1,200,000 for a Lakewood company to develop a blast-resistant coating for military vehicles
• $4.9 million for beach replenishment and new sand dunes along Long Beach Island
• $6.4 million for autism research through the Defense Department, submitted in part by U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., because of high rates of autism in Brick and military families.

The answer, I'm afraid, is "none of them."

• Yes, I'm sure the South River Police Department needs radios -- but why is this a federal affair?
• If the railroad line is Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex, why aren't the people from Monmouth, Ocean, and Middlesex paying for the environmental study?
• Are there really no investors that think that they should invest in blast-resistant coatings? During a war that spends half a billion dollars a day? If so, why are we subsidizing their investments? If not, why should the federal government gainsay them and invest anyway?
• Is Long Beach Island a federal beach? Is protecting our right to walk on the sand one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, or should this one just possibly revert to the states? (Besides, if not for imperfect beaches, corrupt former governor Jim McGreevey wouldn't have hurt himself while walking with his boy toy, Golan Cipel.)
• The most rational-sounding one on the list is the DoD's research on autism -- but since I don't know what research they're doing, I can't say whether it will help military families cope with autism or not. I have a child with autism, and I've been in the military, and I've had friends who had autistic children while in the military. I know it's a problem, and we should support our troops however necessary; but I'm wary of federal-level "research" in this area. If it's general medical research on autism, it's not going to help the troops who have autistic kids now.

I can't stand the way Democrats spend, but tax-and-spend Republicans are even worse.

---