« Put out economic fire | Main | Our new language »

March 28, 2009

Next time you vote …

I suspect that millions of voters in November did not really know whom to vote for until the last minute and then made a decision at their polling station. I have a perfect solution to use if a voter is in a similar quandary in future:

Vote for a person who has never initiated an earmark.

Vote for a person who has never voted for a bill that has earmarks, even if the main bill was worthy of a positive vote.

Vote for a person who has denounced earmarks before his party and before the House and Senate.

Vote for a person that declares there will never be earmarks.

Vote for a person who demands before his party and before the House and Senate that individuals running for office do not accept money from lobbyists.

Vote for a person who declares that lobbying is illegal and punishable by a harsh jail sentence. (Help put 18,000 lobbyists out of work!)

Tim Lesley



OMB Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks

OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

The fundamental stupidity of the "yes to earmarks" crowd becomes evident to all when all the do is list specific earmarks they approve of while ignoring the way those funds were “found”. So the end justifies the means. Good for you Jim.


Another example of how denouncing something you don't understand as "wasteful" can come back to bite you:



Bridges are already funded. What happened tot he 60% of the money allocated to this infrastrtucture? What happened to the other 40%? Earmarks are for deadbeats that can not pay their own bills. Military housing is not an earmark, that is endorsed within the Constitution as is funding of a military to protect citizens (yes even the scumbags that hate the military). It's only a bad earmark when it's not funding unions, deadbeats, abortion or socialist programs that have proven to keep individuals in poverty and dependent.


"Can you take another guess at what “earmarks” that Mr. Lesley is having issues with?"

There's no need. Mr. Lesley is advocating a ban on all earmarks, including bridges. That would also include things like military housing and aid to Israel. The fundamental stupidity of the "no earmarks" crowd becomes evident to all when they are asked about specific, useful earmarks that fall under policies they support. That's why John McCain couldn't get any traction on this issue during the campaign. He kept having to back away from his (and Mr. Lesley's) position over and over again, exempting this earmark or that earmark in front of the appropriate crowd. I guess it's too much to ask that someone actually learn what it is they're going to demagogue about before opening their mouths.


“The term "earmark" is being used to play semantic games. It does not really get at the type of spending that is truly "pork" and to be avoided - pet projects to earn political capital back home, which benefit few at an enormous cost, slipped in under the radar (such as the infamous Bridge to Nowhere).” – Daily KOS: Definition of Earmark by JLFinch

“I wonder if Mr. Lesley drives over bridges...” - Kansasdog

I’m glad you don’t have a problem with bridges Kansasdog. Can you take another guess at what “earmarks” that Mr. Lesley is having issues with?


I wonder if Mr. Lesley drives over bridges, or is a benfactor of the new Federal Reserve building, or the new IRS building, or has ever served in the military, or...

KC Educator

I have to agree with you, but we should go back several more elections than just the last one. Why anyone would vote for Christopher (Kit) Bond after his first election is beyond me. He is one of the biggest wasters of federal tax payers money with pork spending in this country, and now we are naming a bridge, built from pork, after him to honor his ability to bring the pork home. It just goes to show you that one mans pork is another mans legacy.

T. Hanson

Mr. Lesley,
With all due respect this last election started back in 2006. This country was so divided after 2006, that it was apparent that people knew who they were voting for before the election. If you are talking about this upcoming election then I would say that there is no one that has not sold their soul yet.


There is no such a politician, except maybe Ron Paul.
If only we could get some people of such high caliber like Bbbbbbbawrney Fffffwank or Duncy "The Popess" Pelosi, we would then be saved. Government could come to the rescue and save everyone from big bad enterprise.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright