Is NOT Providing An Earmark An Ethics Violation?
If you read the headline above quickly you may not get the extraordinary irony of this story from yesterday's Roll Call: Someone who did not get the earmark he requested says that's a violation of the House ethics rules.
It's usually the other way around; it's sometimes considered an ethics issue when a representative or senator requests and gets an earmark for someone, especially if they have contributed to his or her campaign, provided other support, or has some other connection. In this case, however, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks (D-WA) refused the request and the person who was turned down didn't like it.
You betcha, election year pandering has begun
My rep., the brilliant and beautiful Michele Bachmann, has an interesting juxtaposition on the home page of her official site. There's a picture of a bridge in her district that desperately needs replacement ("Let's build a new St. Croix Bridge!"). Right next to it is a blurb about the evils of earmarks.
My question is, how does she expect to build the new bridge (300-400 million dollars) without an earmark? She has taken the "no earmarks" pledge.
Could this be election year pandering to both sides of the fence? Naw . . . that never happens.