So the House passed a $1.1 trillion budget, with $3.9 billion in earmarks identified. That's what, a third of one percent? But rather than defend or attack earmarks (they can certainly stupid and are oftentimes a vehicle for corruption), I'm more puzzled about this:
Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., secured $930,000 for maintaining exhibits at the Aerospace Museum of California in McClellan. "This is still part of the overall property that was essentially the Air Force base that was closed ... over a decade ago," Lungren said. "So this is part of the continuing process of making that whole area viable."
Lungren, who voted against the bill, said if all members gave up their earmarks he would do the same.
How the hell does one get money earmarked, yet still get that money after voting against the overall budget? He gets to go home, brag about the money he secured for his district, even though he voted against that money. Stupidity on that scale could only be invented in the US Congress.
Yet we've seen this time and time again this year -- Republicans gain concessions and water legislation down, only to then vote against final passage. A competent legislative body would trade such earmarks for VOTES. No vote, no earmark. Same with any policy concessions. Any concessions should be accompanied by actual votes.
But that would make sense and be smart. And if there's one thing we've seen in all too painful detail this year, that's not something Congress is designed to do.