• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Mark of the beast

I have two quotes for you, with no added commentary. Draw your own conclusions.

However, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., secured $4 million in federal funds “earmarked for us to be allocated toward that bridge and to make it a real signature piece,” said Sharon Feasel, a redevelopment specialist for the city. Added to the $2 million INDOT will spend on the project, the budget to replace the bridge is about $6 million. -- From a News-Sentinel story about a new Clinton Street bridge

We are writing today to ask for your assistance in helping stop the abuse of this appropriation process. You were precisely on point in the State of the Union when you outlined the necessity for earmark reform. Earmarks have gotten out of control and the federal budget has too many special interest projects. You can help fix the problem. -- First paragraph of a letter to President Bush from five United States senators, including Evan Bayh

Posted in: Hoosier lore

Comments

Jeff Pruitt
Fri, 03/10/2006 - 10:30pm

Draw a conclusion from two paragraphs? How convenient. Perhaps someone (I guess that's me) should encourage your readers to NOT draw a conclusion from 2 paragraphs but actually look into the topic at hand a little deeper.

You fail to point out what earmark reform is all about - it is definitely NOT ending all earmarks. Senator McCain (along w/ Bayh) introduced a bill that would

1)help kill targeted provisions without killing the entire appropriations bill.

2)Require congressmen to receive enough time to review all appropriations bills

3)Require earmarks be fully disclosed in the bill's report including the member requesting the earmark, and its stated purpose

4)Prohibit federal agencies from adding earmarks to unammendable congressional reports

Of course you COULD have discussed the bill's pros/cons but I suppose that would've required more work than copying-and-pasting two cherry-picked paragraphs...

Jeff Pruitt
Fri, 03/10/2006 - 10:39pm

I also wanted to point out that Citizens Against Government Waste ranked Indiana as the 45th in it's pork rankings for 2005...

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2005Porkpercap

LP Mike Sylvester
Sat, 03/11/2006 - 10:00am

Another interesting story about Earmarks and Fort Wayne.

Our Congressman (For now) "Mark I will only serve 12 years Souder" spoke at a Republican event for The Young Republicans that I attended earlier this year. You will not believe what Mark Souder said about earmarks with a straight face.

Mark Souder said "Earmarks are the only way some Republicans from rural districts can get any Federal money spent in their Districts."

I am not kidding. Jeff Fraser and Mitch Harper were both present and can verify that Mark Souder actually said this with a straight face and appeared to actually believe it... Wow...

Talk about clueless...

We need to ensure that Mark Souder keeps his 1994 Campaign Promise to serve only 12 years in office and give him the boot...

Steve Towsley
Sat, 03/11/2006 - 4:22pm

Evan Bayh tells President Bush that rampant earmarks are straining the federal budget, even as he earmarks $4 million to impress folks back home with a prettier bridge than they could afford themselves. Coming from a red-state Democrat with presidential aspirations, this smells a little like leaving money on the nightstand.

Of course, Bayh is positioning himself for the Democratic primaries as a "moderate liberal," whatever that is, and he really doesn't like the red staters back home, and doesn't enjoy hearing from them. He courts his home state's undecided with a little pork money and curries favor with his radical party bosses. The balancing act requires both yin AND yang, flip AND flop.

It's now clear that despite Bayh's moderate reputation, even his stray votes on some second- or third-tier matters, Bayh has been voting in lockstep with the die-hard party radicals -- Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi, and Boxer -- on every sacred cow in his leadership's unchanging agenda.

After the spontaneous rush to the polls to reject the blue-fringe ideology in 2004, from gay marriage to gun bans to the U.N., if the Democrats are going to mention the word "change" in upcoming elections, they badly need to go first.

What Bayh's party does never fails to give the lie to what they say. Like, "We don't want to take your guns," for example, with a previous candidate running around in a camo outfit even as he went out of his way to cast his vote with Kennedy, Feinstein and Schumer for a wagonload of new gun controls, which failed.

And remember "We are just as ready to fight for America as the Republicans," followed by promises to spend no more on Iraq and cut back the military, while the party's own anti-war pacifists acted as if they had something to celebrate?

What good is a so-called moderate in the White House OR in Congress if you STILL wind up negotiating with terrorists, defending America with U.N. resolutions, bowing to international governance, junking immigration law, and waging grass roots insurrection just to keep your Constitution and Bill of Rights from being burned while progressives fiddle? No good, of course.

At the end of the day, no matter what flaws other politicians may have, no matter how displeased with individual public servants I may be, casting a liberal vote, letting them back in, is still a FAR worse choice.

So, moderate or not, Bayh is in no way less dangerous. Not with the failed agenda and old party bosses stubbornly entrenched behind him.

Quantcast