And as for debating the importance? Um, that's kind of the whole point here- earmarks are slipped in by sidestepping the debate process (because they'd never be approved in most cases if they were actually put to a vote instead of being bundled with other bills and holding that legislation hostage unless the earmark is funded.)

Obama and Ayers — this is serious taint. (Naturally, ACORN enters the picture.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765…

What's not so great for me (a voter in PA) might be just what a taxpayer in Iowa needs.

Oh, and I have to say — was this article really meant to be humorous? I'm not critiquing the writing per se,I just didn't find it funny.

Maybe it's some dry wit that I'm not getting….

http://thepajamapundit.com/

I still haven't seen the details about the existing taxes he will _increase_ or the new taxes he will impose to pay for all he has been promising.

As I've noted aloud before, one of the motives for this bailout of the financial industry, if you're cynical, is that it not only steals an election issue from Obama (so far, not the case), but takes money out of Obama's hands that he might [mis]spend on those campaign vote-buying promises. There's only so much money we can spend and only so much debt we can assume; even Democrats will have to face this at some point.

One reason to resist the rush to approve the current bailout plan is to scale it back and make money available for Obama to spend on some of his promises, if he is elected.

Meanwhile, I try to be prepared for all contingencies…

http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_W06_Po…

“Never met an earmark they didn't like” is not a statement proven by a handful of sillier earmarks. Presumably those all went back to their districts and benefited their constitutants… that doesn't mean they're in love with the concept of earmark spending.

Second, I was under the impression that the whole basis of Obama's plan was to take money out of the war he would end and put it in infrastructure investment at home. Who thinks Obama's running on a platform of cutting government programs again?

Finally, “wasteful” is completely in the eye of the beholder. The classic double edge of pork is that when others get it it's pork, but when you get it it's bacon… and people like bacon. Is the Iraq War wasteful or necessary? Is the War on Drugs wasteful or necessary? Is a 700 billion bailout for Wall St wasteful or necessary? Call me when you've defined “wasteful” and we can talk.

I don't doubt some of those criticisms of CAGW, but the fact remains that they shine the light of day on Congress's biggest porkers, providing a service for taxpayers. Now, apparently you believe that earmarks are the legitimate way for Congressional reps to provide for their constituents- but haven't you ever wondered why worthwhile projects shouldn't be openly debated in order for federal money to be appropriately allocated? Should we really be using borrowed federal dollars to fund local projects without even asking the sponsors to defend the reason for these expenditures?

“Throughout its history, CAGW has been accused of fronting lobbying efforts of corporations to give them the appearance of “grassroots” support”

And you claim McCain never got one earmark? Hah! He's not doing his job then.