earmarks: it's not a Democrat/Republican thing

An article by NYT writers in Sunday's C-J describes the Democratic proclivity for "earmarks". Another example where the two major political parties are not all that different...

Ironically, the enhanced transparency has led to more earmarks and bolder bragging about earmarks. This may seem surprising, but not if one considers the difference between what most people want from Congress and what most want from our individual representatives. We want Congress to act like fiscal conservatives, but we want our reps to act like fiscal liberals on our behalf. We despise others' bacon, while we're addicted to our own pork.

"Everybody hates earmarks, but everybody loves earmarks," said Rep. José Serrano, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services.

Actually, it's easier and clearer than that: "Everybody hates the earmarks of others, but everybody loves their own earmarks".

When Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., recently ridiculed a provision on the House floor to spend $100,000 on a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kan., Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., jumped to promote her district's heritage.

"The local residents are proud of their heritage, and rightly so," Boyda told Flake during a debate on the House floor. The House voted 317-112 to keep her earmark.

Actually, if Boyda's constituents were so "proud of their heritage", wouldn't they finance their own museum instead of taking money from people in Indiana to pay for it?

Transparency still trumps non-transparency. But unless we elect people who won't bring funds back to us, what we'll get is more bragging in each district and more spending at the federal level. What will change this? We need far more voters who think taking from people in Vermont to build a museum in Kansas (and vice versa) is unethical and impractical.