Very interesting piece in American Prospect (via Matt Yglesias) that explains why Republicans need earmarks much more than Dems do. It goes beyond the mere hypocrisy of everybody in Congress wanting earmarks for their districts, but wanting to be generally "against earmarks and pork."
There's nothing partisan about earmarks -- Republicans do it, Democrats do it, and if you were a member of Congress, you'd do it, too. But for the moment, Republicans are far more dependent than Democrats on their ability to take some credit for federally funded projects. In the world with earmarks, Lindsay Graham is able to stand against the president on stimulus, on the budget, on Iraq, on health care. And then he's able to go home, cut a ribbon, get his picture in the paper, and tell everyone that he delivered the money for the new Myrtle Beach Convention Center.
But in a world without earmarks, what does Lindsay Graham bring home? Just words, and great stories about how he fought bravely against health care and economic stimulus.
Whereas a Democrat in a world without earmarks will be able to go home, ideally, and tell her constituents that she supported a popular president, that she helped rescue the economy, that she's moving us toward universal health care.
The article goes on to make the very interesting case that, absent earmarks, Republicans in Congress would be forced to either tell their constituents that they spent two years in Washington and accomplished absolutely nothing, or else learn how to compromise so that they can have a part in the accomplishments of the majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment