They should just say they support earmarks

by: Jason Springer

Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:00:00 PM EDT

I'm not in the business of parsing earmarks to decide which projects are worthy of funding and those that don't make the cut. But I have a particular interest in our Representatives saying one thing and doing another. Take for example Scott Garrett and Rodney Frelinghuysen. Let's see what they have said about earmarks in the past. Jvoterinfo has this statement from Garrett's 2008 website, which is no longer live:

Scott Garrett remains a leading critic of frivolous earmarks.

Maybe he thinks it's all how you define frivolous? After including earmarks in the current omnibus spending bill and then voting against it, his press secretary must have gotten dizzy giving this quote:

"Rep. Garrett strongly concurs and has advocated tirelessly for the reduction in the overall size of the federal government," she wrote. "In this vein, he opposed the omnibus spending bill because it greatly increased government spending. He does believe his constituents deserve to receive as much benefit from their tax dollars as possible and is supportive of projects which benefit his constituents."

So he'll take credit for the projects while opposing them because increasing government spending is bad, unless its spending he specifically asks for? Moving on to Rodney Frelinghuysen and why he opposed the omnibus spending bill:

I rise in opposition to this omnibus appropriations bill for many reasons, not the least of which is that this bill adds even more spending on top of the stimulus package that we just passed.

Ok, a very principled stand, unless you dig deeper to find out that Rodney helped add $173 million onto that spending:

"As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is my job to look after the needs of my district and state, especially when New Jersey ranks 50th out of the 50 states in federal taxpayer dollars coming back home," Frelinghuysen said in a statement Wednesday. "I will continue to support New Jersey priorities."

So while Garrett draws the line at defining frivolous, Rodney makes his stand on the borders with New Jersey earmarks. Either way, their rhetoric on spending rings hollow when they help contribute to the same process they try to convince the voters they oppose. Even the president of the NJ taxpayer alliance recognizes the hypocrisy of their arguments:

"It's interesting the way the system plays out," he said. "Everybody rails against it, then when the truck backs up with the money, everybody wants to get a piece of the pie, too. ...

They should just say they support earmarks. The question then becomes, how should you decide which ones to support and how do you best inform the citizens of that decision making process.

Jason Springer :: They should just say they support earmarks