There are no two politicians that can agree on two words that seem to be an obsession of John McCain and the Grover Norquist cabal: waste and earmarks. I am disappointed that Chris Matthews is buying into some mythical definition of these terms that exist out there in the mind of someone. No such definition exists anywhere! This is poor journalism and Matthews ought to know better.
As a mediator, one of the first thing that I was taught is that a "small problem" is what "other people" have, never what the two people sitting in front of you have. The same can be said for waste...it is what other people do. Other people waste taxpayers' money! If it is spend on me or the interests that I have, it is not waste. BY DEFINITION!
The same thing about those supposedly evil earmarks. If an earmark directs money to a project that benefits my community...my constituency...it is good. If it is directed to somebody else's community or constituency, the Norquist/McCain crowd seem to think that is a definition of what is bad. Which is why, in the midst of all of McCain's foaming at the mouth today, is no mention of the fact that members of HIS party have the most earmarks! He calls out Obama for supposedly reniging on his campaign pledge but the is narry a work calling out his fellow Republicans for their hypocracy!
These two words do not have an objective definition. A purely subjective definition, i.e. a political one, are what passes for substantive debate on a spending bill. This is idiocy.
If you listen to the anti-earmark crowd they have no problem with tax cuts. Tax cuts are always good, according to them. What they ignore and hope the rest of us ignores, is that tax cuts are the reciprocal of a tax expenditure. From a budgetary standpoint, a dollar spend and a dollar in taxes deferred looks the same way on a balance sheet. There are two ways I can end up in the poor house: spending too much or earning too little. And that's a fact, Jack.
So, when we pass a tax bill that gives a tax break to a particular segment of the income earning population it is the same, from a macro economic standpoint, as sending a check to that same segment of the population. My checking accounts look better either way: if you send me money or cancel a debt! This is not rocket science economics, folks. It is Econ 101 and Chris Matthews ought to do a slamdown on anyone who proposes such a nutty idea.
A day or so ago, Matthews took a Republican congressman to task for using the term Democrat Party pointing out that this was insulting to Democrats who are members of the Democratic Party. It is time he showed the same journalistic courage to demand that anyone using the terms waste or earmarks give a definition of what they mean that can be used by disinterested parties to come up with consistent results. And if they can't...just shut up!!!