March 11, 2009

Obama: Earmarks are OK

So the President signed the big budget bill and said,

"Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts. And that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said.

We should expect this from a past Senator. Earmarks are bribes, plain and simple. Senators steal tax payer money, our money, without discussion, without voting, without any right, and send it home for whatever splashy project plays well in the news so they can be the big savior and get reelected again and again and again. Who gave these... these robber barons the right to collect tolls on our lives, to tax every little thing we do, to control every transaction in America, and feed the spoils back to their home state for their friends' projects, for voter bribes.

And, to paraphrase from the movie Powder, "just how long do they think we'll let them keep us here." Yes, yes, earmarks are a small part of the budget... but they are bribes that keep these people in power... just how small does a bribe have to be before it's illegal? President Obama and others say earmarks are for worthy, public projects. Here's an idea, reduce our federal taxes so more money is available to states and let the state legislators vote on whether these projects are worthy or not. Why should Hoosiers be forced to pay for projects in West Virginia without even a vote? How long does this go on before someone realizes other States' Senators, who are not representing us, are taking our money. Just what is, "Taxation without Representation" if not this?

No comments: