News aggregator
Coffee Party brewing
Please Define "Against Congressional Earmarks"
Check out the headline and first sentence in this new AP story: "Missouri's leading US Senate candidates join movement against congressional earmarks."
When did Roy "proud and prolific earmarker" Blunt say he was "against earmarks?" Yesterday, he made a weak proposal to make $30 billion in unspecified cuts to the federal budget -- but how does such a response constitute a "movement against earmarks" in any way?
Compare the AP's summary of Blunt's position to the following, printed yesterday in Politico:
Blunt has defended the process of earmarking, following the lead of retiring Sen. Kit Bond, whose prolific appropriating has delivered millions for Missouri roads, bridges, airports and housing projects. In 2010 alone, Blunt requested $153 million in earmarks, a record Carnahan was eager to take a swipe at.
<!--break-->
And the Post-Dispatch:
Blunt, a candidate for the Missouri’s GOP Senate nomination, moved to innoculate [sic] himself on the earmarks issue by proposing Thursday to cut the budget by the amount of spending on local projects in last year’s budget — $30.7 million.
“Since this (earmarks) debate is actually about spending, I believe we need to go one better,” he said in a statement.
Perhaps I missed an overnight development: What would lead us to believe Roy Blunt has abandoned his long record in Washington as a "proud and prolific earmarker?"






