Earmark hypocrisy?

James Maule has observed that some Congress of eartags benefactor who peppered are:

The practice of opposing peppered, while the share annoyed some members of Congress has. The best deal in this story reported among others comes from Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Reid said that some of those who to speak out "are people who have more crowded than others against peppered." "If in a dictionary and found hypocrites went to H, would be among the people for eartags to ask but vote against you."

Senator Dick Durbin, the ear tags inserted nearly $100 million in the legislation, is reported to have said, "many of the same senators who criticize... peppered are peppered have in the account." This is the height of hypocrisy to stand up and demand an ear tag and then fold your arms and pious announce, "I'm against peppered." "

Currently pending Congressional spending are invoices, the at least $8 billion in peppered contain. So much for the TAM-TAM's surrounded announcement by the Republicans, they were peppered ban last month. 38 You in pending legislation has Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a supporter of the ban on ear tags;. Senators John Thune and John Cornyn, attacked the legislation, which combined spending bills but peppered on the defensive with questions about the 17 had placed the two of you in the legislation. Thune replied: "I support this law to support these projects [funded by ear tags] but I."

Use this type of inconsistency, a gentler Word as hypocrisy, the deficit problems cut to underscores the madness of the opposition to budget deficit growth with support for tax combined extensions that help budget deficits, justified by claims that spending is reduced all thrown us from members who continue to solve to engage in the ear tag game.

I do not agree with Reid, Durbin and Maule. It is peppered hypocritical nor towards a total ban on while you benefit from earmarks while legally inconsistent.

Let me illustrate with a simple example:

When a Congressman hits that limit the speed on I-95 to be reduced to 55 miles per hour and for 70 miles per hour, he acts not hypocritical. His ride at the higher limit which speed is not hypocritical is because he does not propose that reduce the speed only for him, but rather that it be reduced for everyone. If on the other hand, the law changed and the maximum speed reduced to 55 and he continued to drive at 70, then he would be a hypocrite.¹

Allow Similarly, legislators, to favour a law, the ear tags; all congressmen not crowded when inserting their own invoices will be not necessarily hypocritical. If you are not back to bring the single for your constituents, are set on big political disadvantage.

Footnote:

I have repeatedly called for technology¹ to be fair, for these high net worth individuals on the left who have publicly clueless, increasing taxes on the rich to put your money where their mouths are and voluntarily more taxes. Left has countered with the same argument I do here: whether this wealthy Pro Taxers are not proposing a policy only your taxes but rather a increase, which will increase the taxes of all high-income people. You have a point.

Square Maule then says that the opposition to peppered only on principle (emphasis added is):

Earmarks $8 billion, although apparently represents a huge amount of money to most of us, something in the order of one quarter of one percent of the annual federal budget. I doubt there is already a drop in the bucket. It is rather a grain of sand at the beach. So what's the big deal? The great thing is principle. The great thing is the nefarious effects on the economy of a way of thinking, the tax extensions and peppered cut while complaining about budget deficits and accepted federal spending.

When no clear direction is submitted, are those who run end up scattered and lost. This is what will? Perhaps. Is this what do Americans? I hope not. But it's what we always have been and we continue to be what, until enough people understand what happened and strengthen opposition.

, Increased deficits we continue for as long as people on the left side as Professor right proposal of Maule, discount of each budget cut actually is page on the grounds that it is only "a drop in the bucket."

The prohibition of ear tags as spending cut action is more than principle, Mr Maule, because a bucket full, receives after enough drop into fall.