Earmarks certainly do have their place, as Mr. Brown concedes. When Republicans held Congress that place, by the way, grew enormously. Just like the need for birth certificates, scrutiny of earmarks is a need only felt by Republicans when they’re in the minority.
But Mr. Brown has nobly decided to forgo all earmarks:
In the months ahead, I will work with the citizens of Massachusetts and my colleagues in the Senate to explore new ways to ensure that requests for projects are transparent, accountable and in the best interest of our state and the nation.
Apparently, Mr. Brown’s talking points are more important to him than the needs of the state.
Please share widely!
Like Republicans everywhere he seems not to get the need for the federal government to make up for the drop in demand:
Yes, the federal government should do what it does well and efficiently and without waste, but cutting back its outlays during a recession and the period of weak employment that follows a recession — well, that’s moronic.
To Herbert Hoover. He was not the free market acolyte liberals and conservatives alike make him out to be, but a progressive Republican who recognized the need of the federal government to fund infrastructure. He made his name in that field actually helping get the Panama Canal passed, working on the first primitive interstate highway system, and he laid the groundwork for a lot of policy proposals from the CCC to the TVA that FDR would later take credit for.
<
p>But I agree with the gist of your post, Brown if anything is worse than Hoover since he doesn’t even support basic infrastructure spending not just for the country but even for his own state.
<
p>After ousting Bennet and putting in dipsticks like Brown a lot of tea party activists who (whether they know it or not) depend on all that evil ‘big gov’ment spendin’ are about to have a rude awakening when they find out just how much (or in this case how little) they will reap from what they sowed.
This story ran back in mid-April and apparently concerned his support of an earmark:
http://www.boston.com/news/nat…
<
p>
<
p>I’m surprised he brought up the thing about spending money on fruit flies. Palin got in trouble over that one.
http://www.scientificamerican….
<
p>
Forget all the other things that government does, what is most important is that we spend the maximum possible amount of money on scientific researchers, because time is of the essence here: if we don’t figure everything out by 2012, the aliens win.
In the Boston Globe transcript of the interview that they based their last puff piece on, through several questions, Brown insists that he will not have earmarks. However, he says, “There are certain projects that are worthy, and when I do fight for things, I will go and speak to the appropriate people through the authorizing process.” and “You gotta work through the authorization process. You work through he administration, get it included in the budget. I’m going to still work with the delegation members to try to let them know my thoughts on particular projects, and try to get them funded.” What does he think earmarks are? Those projects, if specifically designated, are earmarks. I’ve noticed that when funding has been announced, it is credited to both Senators and the relevant Representatives. So, should they leave his name out?
http://www.boston.com/news/nat…
<
p>The rest of the interview is enlightening. I am trying to think if his comments sound more like rambling letters from sleep away camp or comments from an immature guy happy to be in a frat.
Just like the need for birth certificates, scrutiny of earmarks is a need only felt by Republicans when the
y’re in thePOTUS is a minority.He writes, “I will voluntarily abide by the earmark moratorium I voted for but which did not pass.”
<
p>Never mind that he’s already supporting the earmark to fund the jet engine that the Air Force does not want…Earmarks are attached to a friendly spending bills–to help widows and orphans– and either Brown votes against widows and orphans, or he brakes his promise and votes for the earmarks.
Not only is he breaking that promise but one earmark actually helps MA, while the other only helps his national security credentials with national Republican primary voters. Even this early its clear where Brown’s priorities are, guess he is learning from his buddy Mitt that shafting MA early and often is the key to national success. Here is hoping he can be denied a second term like Mitt as well.
Under Teddy MA had one of the best taxes contributed-funds dispersed back ratios of any US state. The biotech industry, higher education, fisheries, our coast guard and military bases, museums and national parks. All of that came from Teddy and to a lesser extent Tip, men who had no qualms about helping out the folks back home. It offends me that Brown has a holier than thou attitude on this, its like Jindal refusing aid to help Katrina victims, it scores cheap political points with the tea party and helps shore up their presidential ambitions while leaving their actual constituents out in the cold (in some cases literally-remember Ted helped get public housing and heating assistance too).
<
p>I don’t understand why someone would support a Senator who brags about how little he is doing for and how actively he is fighting against his state’s economy. Someone should keep a tally on how many jobs, federal contracts, research opportunities, environmental funding, military bases, education funding, and environmental protection our state lost under Brown that it had under Kennedy. That should be a metric that goes into 2012. It matter a whole lot more than which candidate owns a pick-up.