Love those earmarks

Both our N.J. senators – Democrats Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez _ voted today against a plan to ban earmarks.

The ban failed.

It would be easy to condemn the two, but let’s remember that N.J. does very bad in the amount of money returned to the state from Washington. I do not think that’s a big deal _ N.J. sends lots of money to Washington because it is rich. But some people do. So, they should support Lautenberg and Menendez, right. Sure, that means N.J. has a chance to get more money back.

Advertisements

About fsnowflack
Fred Snowflack was editorial page editor and a political columnist for the Daily Record of Morristown for almost 12 years. He has won numerous awards for editorial and column writing from the New Jersey Press Association and has written a blog on county and state politics for the last three years. He lives in Ledgewood in Morris County.

18 Responses to Love those earmarks

  1. P says:

    Lautenberg & Menendez (and Corzine & Torricelli before them) have consistently failed to make sure that NJ received anywhere near our “fair share” of Federal largess, whilst constantly promoting the idea that “The Rich” (i.e., the residents of higher earning states like NJ) need to pay more in Federal Income taxes.

    Why on earth would we support politicians who have proven to be that ineffective in promoting the financial welfare of NJ?

  2. Ed France says:

    The “earmarks” are the reason they run,and keep running. This happens in all 50 States. It is called “bringing home the bacon”. The reasoning would be that these earmarks help improve the roads,bridges and public education.
    For some reason we are living in a time when so many residents do not trust some elected officials in Washington DC.
    Services are needed and have to be paid for.If not by way of earmarks,where would the funding come from?

  3. Tea Party voter says:

    OK whio is going to run against the incccumbents? I would vote for a Grant.

  4. Ted Doty says:

    Let’s consider Pbrain’s income tax theory for a moment. Instead of contributing more per capita to the nation’s well being, perhaps NJ SHOULD keep its wealth within the state’s border. The heck with everyone else. We can provide for our own.

    Come to think of it, why should Morris County send more to Trenton than it gets back? Or for that matter, why should Mendham pay more than Dover?

    I also hear the folk in the Fleetwood section of Rockaway Twp pay more in taxes than services received…and I know a guy on one street who pays more income taxes than any of his neighbors but under the law, is only their equal.

    Pbrain, I think you’re on to something. We should live by “every man for himself” rules.

  5. JS says:

    The tortured logic of the hyperpartisan liberal Snowflack is hard to follow this time. Because they fail at bringing home the bacon compared to other states and endorse the continuation of their failure, we should support them?

    Or if they would change the system maybe New Jersey would send less down in the first place and they wouldnt have to work as hard at not bringing home the bacon.

  6. JS should understand a few things
    One is that this is not a partisan thing: No one is responsible for more earmarks coming to NJ than Rodney Frelinfghuysen,.
    Two is that whether there are earmarks are not has nothing to do with the how much money NJ sends to Washington.
    That remains a phony issue. NJ residents pay a greater proportion of federal income taxes per capita simply because residents here are the wealthiest in the nation or very close to it. There is no conspiracy.

  7. P says:

    Let’s consider Ted’s theory – We should submit all our wages and earnings to the IRS so a handful of senior legislators from states other than NJ (and an army of lobbyists on K Street) can decide where/how ALL the money is spent.

    Why reward people for working hard or coming up with great ideas that generate Trillions of Dollars of economic activity. No one should get a dime more than they need.

    It sounds like a fabulous system.

    Why didn’t someone think of it before . . . oh, wait, I seem to remember a guy in Germany . . . what was his name . . I think it was Marx . . . ???

    You’re on to something there TeddyBoy, Socialism/Communism!

  8. P says:

    Fred – I’d agree with most of your post except for ” . . whether there are earmarks are not has nothing to do with the how much money NJ sends to Washington.”

    Inevitably, the more the Federal government spends, the more it needs to raise in taxes (or borrow, which is just deferred taxation), and that Will result in higher Income Taxes, especially for High Income States like NJ.

  9. Ted Doty says:

    No.Pbrain. You invent yet another spin. Income tax rates are based on ability to pay. Nobody turns over their entire paycheck to the IRS.

    Your argument that people keep what they earn or expect a dollar returned for every dollar paid neglects the cost of the system that allowed you to succeed and is just wrong.

    Secondly, your argument neglects the moral obligation to help those less fortunate

  10. P says:

    First, I wasn’t the one who was initially complaining about our “return,” it was Fred. I just pointed out that if anyone was to blame, it was our last four Dem Senators. And alternatively, instead of looking for more back, look to submit less.

    Second, if you are going to take my argument to a ridiculous conclusion, I can do the same to yours.

    Third, if you look back over the past eighty years, my projection is more accurate than yours.

    And lastly, I continue to search the US Constitution for the part where it says that the Federal Government was created or has an “obligation” to help the less fortunate.

    Here’s the Preamble – “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Note that it says “promote the General Welfare,” not “Welfare State.”

  11. Ted Doty says:

    So Pbrain, you 1st defense is that you’re not the first to scream “I want more!”

    Then you slip into some hair brained interpretation of the US Constitution. I’m quite sure you were taught that the constitution was written as a document that would evolve with the nation.

    Since we are a democratic republic and the vast majority of citizens elect representatives to help those who can’t help themselves, your “every man for himself” concept is dead in the water.

  12. P says:

    Actually, my Battle Cry is “I want to keep more of what I earned.” Yours is, “Give it all to Obama and Pelosi and let them decide.”

    As for “evolving,” I was taught (and I’m sure you were too, unless you were brought up in the USSR) that there was a process for changing the Constitution, it’s called Amending and the process is clearly enumerated in the original document (those Founding Fathers were really smart guys). “Evolving” was a liberal invention to get around the proper amending of the Constitution (i.e., the will of the people.

    P.S. Speaking of Founding Fathers, have you been able to find any referencable sites that back up one of your most ridiculous claims to-date – That Adam Smith was a Founding Father?? 😉

    P.P.S. In case you lost your copy, here’s the applicable language about Amending the Constitution –

    Article. V.

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

  13. Ted Doty says:

    Again, your poor reading comprehension hangs you up. constitutional interpretation evolves and that evolution is reflected in those we elect. Pbrain, the constitution was not written to have a static interpretation.

  14. P says:

    My reading skills are perfectly fine. You just want to be able to “interpret” the Constitution to fit your political agenda. Unfortunately, Liberals (such as yourself) are unwilling to admit that and instead go through a whole kabuki theater of pretending that it’s a “living” constitution, or that the interpretation can “evolve.”

    So stop pretending that we both don’t know what’s going on, or that I can’t read. Both are patently false.

  15. Ted Doty says:

    For 234 years, the Constitution as been interpreted and reinterpreted. Most of the time without amendment. It’s a living document constantly adjusted by the Judicial branch who are either elected or appointed by representatives (who were elected by popular vote)

  16. P says:

    First, Supreme Court justices are supposed to determine if laws passed by Congress and the states are Constitutional, not “re-interpret” or “adjust” the document to fit their political point of view. And the Constitution has been amended on many occasions (27 to be exact), and that’s the only way it should be changed, not by judicial fiat.

    Second, representatives/legislators don’t appoint justices or judges, nor are they elected. The President nominates them and the Senate confirms or rejects a President’s nominees.

    Finally, the Constitution was completed in 1787, ratified by New Hampshire in 1788 (the ninth state, which by agreement, made it operational) , and officially took effect in 1789. Thus, it is 223 years old, and has been our legal framework for 221 years, not 234.

    It’s really hard to take your “history” of the US Constitution seriously when you don’t even know what the document says or when it was written.

  17. P says:

    The Silence is Deafening!

    I guess Ted finally consulted a history book and realized the error of his ways.

  18. Ted Doty says:

    No Pbrain, determining constitutionality IS an interpretation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: