ooh...I think I understand Baron Hill better now

He's always saying he's a fiscal conservative.

And then recently, he sent a taxpayer-financed mailing (campaign materials) where he claimed to be leading on fiscal restraint by example.

Now, in trying to avoid returning $26,000 in campaign contributions from Rep. Charles Rangel, Hill's explanation (through his spokesman) is that "the money has already been spent".

This is amusing since Hill liked to tar Mike Sodrel with some of his Republican associations.

But it may also explain why Hill thinks he's an example of fiscal conservatism. All of that government spending he voted for-- it's already been spent!

In his description of the Rangel contributions, Hill doesn't seem to understand "fungibility"-- the idea that monies can move around. His limited understanding of a key financial/political concept may explain a lot-- why he embraces static vs. dynamic analyses on tax rate cuts, why he supports policies like Social Security despite the devastation they cause, etc.

I thought that many of his positions on economics and finance were based on deceit; maybe it's just ignorance.