tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post2094640826682207360..comments2023-10-24T11:23:31.580-04:00Comments on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Don't Sweat the Small StuffWilliam A. Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16433685588536441422noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-81635787926473282982010-11-28T05:18:28.759-05:002010-11-28T05:18:28.759-05:00Plenty of us great-unwashed gardeners see SB510 as...Plenty of us great-unwashed gardeners see SB510 as giving DHS/TSA & the IRS, direct jurisdiction of our respective patches.<br /><br />I don't see why a number of conservatives blithely dismiss the unconstitutional intrusiveness & central planning contrivances of this so-called food safety bill.<br /><br />The Government in your Garden is a line in the sand for many.<br /><br />Many of us understand how turning corn into gas only drives up food prices up, & this, just as hyper-inflation hits due to all the printed money.<br /><br />Not to mention the fact that recent wheat production has been lower globally.<br /><br />The word 'confluence' comes to mind.<br /><br />I've got plan, lets open a TSA desk in your garden shack.<br /><br />Don't forget, the same bunch that wrote ObamaCare, wrote SB510.tahDeetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03735408428093776166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-45221601520025016542010-11-24T10:59:12.975-05:002010-11-24T10:59:12.975-05:00Professor, your argument was used against John McC...Professor, your argument was used against John McCain in the 2008 election by none other than Obama himself. <br /><br />My rebuttal (and what should have been McCain's rebuttal) is, "Hey, at least it's a start."<br /><br />Getting the ball rolling towards fiscal responsibility and fixing government corruption MUST start somewhere; why not with earmarks?CHMusicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12263199591612233726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-46857523576022351502010-11-23T21:37:46.847-05:002010-11-23T21:37:46.847-05:00In support of Drex Davis,
Pundit: Earmarks are a...In support of Drex Davis,<br /><br /><b>Pundit</b>: Earmarks are a tiny part of the budget. Only $16 billion, about 1%.<br /><b>Congressman</b>: Yeah, I'll just take a tiny $20 million for my friends and myself.<br /><br /><a href="http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2010/11/eliminate-earmarks.html" rel="nofollow">Eliminate Earmarks</a><br /><br />Cato@Liberty by Jim Harper [edited] :<br />========<br />Earmarks are not a huge part of the federal budget, but we should end them anyway. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) calls them a “gateway drug to federal spending addiction,” which is a folksy way of talking about political “log-rolling.” Former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) has seen it first-hand. He explains (<a href="http://endingspending.com/blog/2010/10/22/tae-president-discusses-hidden-cost-of-earmarks-on-msnbcs-morning-joe/" rel="nofollow"><b>video 4:00</b></a>) how House and Senate leaders use earmarks to buy votes on legislation they want passed.<br /><br />If earmarks go away as a tool for wheeling-and-dealing in Congress, members and senators will be less likely to sell out the country as a whole with bloated spending bills and Rube-Goldberg regulatory projects for the benefit of some local interest or campaign contributor.<br />========Andrew_M_Garlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02855052302054611917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-29121589393008091232010-11-23T17:52:09.677-05:002010-11-23T17:52:09.677-05:00What 'Drex Davis said...'
.
Earmarks = Bri...What '<i>Drex Davis said...</i>'<br />.<br />Earmarks = Bribes for the few to pass big legislation that sucks for us all.<br />.martywdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123381583620194742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-11081255456309280992010-11-23T17:03:05.258-05:002010-11-23T17:03:05.258-05:00I can't tell whether this is a ploy to get Dem...I can't tell whether this is a ploy to get Democrats to vote against the bill in the lame duck session or shame Republicans into voting for it.<br /><br />Any Republican who now votes against this bad bill will be painted as voting for earmarks.ThreeSheetshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10873393698899480308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-46633342136196836732010-11-23T14:18:32.514-05:002010-11-23T14:18:32.514-05:00I think if you look at this issue from another ang...I think if you look at this issue from another angle, it makes more sense. For just .5% of government spending, why is there such resistance from Congressional Leadership (on both sides of the aisle) against getting rid of them? That's the question to ask. Once you ask it and looks closely, you see why.<br /><br />Earmarks are an effective tool to manipulate Congressional voting blocks. <br /><br />Take "Legislation A" that does not stand-alone well and cannot muster majority support.<br /><br />Then take "Project B" that favors one group of people (say, a state or city) at the expense of all others. As a stand-alone project B could never pass legislatively if introduced alone.<br /><br />But what if I told you that the way Congress does business now often leads to Legislation A passing while (and because) it includes project B?<br /><br />It happens all the time and earmarks are what makes it possible.<br /><br />Congressional Leadership can pass legislation that a minority wants if they will throw in pet projects (in the form of earmarks) that people who wouldn't otherwise want the legislation want. See, they can go back home and tout the fact that they got project B funded and put in place (a targeted benefit) while refusing to call attention to the bad legislation they passed (a dispersed cost).<br /><br />When costs are dispersed but benefits targeted, that's where corruption and vote buying will most emerge and where special interests most come to play.<br /><br />So - because of earmarks - you end up with bad legislation that includes bad and wasteful projects.<br /><br />Votes are bought through earmarking grants.<br /><br />It's like logrolling, but unlike traditional logrolling, it's a crack-cocaine version ...<br /><br />Without earmarks big, bad, costly legislation is less able to be forced through.<br /><br />Get rid of earmarking, and you get rid of the "lever" through which some of our worst legislation has been passed.Drex Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15175777782718420431noreply@blogger.com