Thanksgiving and political irony (? hypocrisy)

Republican senator Jon Kyle has much to be thankful for. Just 3 days after he and fellow Republicans renounced earmarks, the senate passed a bill into which Kyl had inserted a request for $200 million to help pay for an Arizona Indian tribe's claims against the government for water rights. So Kyl gets to have it both ways: he opposes earmarks, but then he got a big one for his constituents.

Kyl's office insists this isn't an earmark. So, what is it then? An earmark is generally considered a spending item inserted into another bill by an individual lawmaker that benefits "one specific entity or is targeted for a specific state."

Of course, Republicans (earmarkers, par excellence) have concluded that being anti-earmark is a political winner right now, so they've jumped on the bandwagon, even Mitch McConnell, who has been one of the top players of the pork game.

The irony of all this irony, however, is the more nuanced analysis of the whole earkmark/anti-earmark debate that is now being discussed.

Although "earmarks" have a deservedly bad name because of too many really useless pet projects that the powerful can obtain to fatten their own claims to largesse for their constituents (bridges to nowhere, for example). But the majority of these projects are probaby worthwhile financial aid to transportation, education, and infrastructure; and it's a way for the federal government to award money to help local governments.

The question is in the how of the process; the what is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that the earmark process awards funding based on the power of the seeker, not the merit of the project.

Now that the Repubs have taken to denouncing pork as their latest political pet, Democrats are pointing out that this is very interesting, given that most of these projects would now be decided and funded by the bureaucratic system of the administrative branch -- which for the next two years, at least, is under Democratic control.

Get it? -- now, instead of the Republican senator taking credit for a school or road in his district, the same project will get funded (or not) based on decisions within the administration's Transportation or Education ministries.

How ironic, and how sweet. Maybe it's the Democrats, after all, who should give thanks today for this Republican move.

Ralph

PS: I had bought into the whole "earmarks are bad" scenario; it just seemed outrageous that an individual powerful senator could grab such large sums of money almost for the asking. I still think that's a very bad system. But if the projects are good, then it's a question of the delivery system and who gets to control it. I too think it's better if it is more systematic rather than "to the rich and powerful go the spoils."