McCain, Obama pushed pet projects in letters

This article seems like an attempt to neutralize the earmark issue by benchmarking political interest in project. "earmarks refer to congressional provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that direct specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees." - Wikipedia. Pushing a pet project without directing approved funds is not earmarking regardless of what Melanie Sloan says. From her perspective, everything that a congress person has interest in is earmarking. Obama has at least $320 million in earmarks (check out his web site) while McCain has none.

Who cares?! People from every district and state like you and I send tax dollars as a means of savings to meet public interest priorities at the national level. That's what taxes are for and at the national level they come from taxable portions of our incomes, trade, use of public facilities and other sources. Why shouldn't monies collected at the national level be returned in the form of services and investments in the communities from which the money comes? Transparency and accountability - OK and shouldn't the citizens of each district and state make responsible and informed judgements on that accord? The earmark issue is a bit of a canard and emblem for the "Government waste crowd." Every business venture that collapses, investment that takes jobs overseas, hundreds of Billions in financial sector write-offs... those are massive private sector waste that are causing our current malaise and loss of credibility in the credit markets. Earmarks are a joke for us to focus so much on.

Spending is the issue. There are budgets mandated by the Constitution and there is spending that get people reelected. Why should some guy spend my tax dollars in Illinois to get reelected when I don't live in Illinois? If there is earmarked spending, let the states budget it. My tax dollars go to my state. The Federal government spends for Federal mandated budgets not congressional reelection whims.

So what are the parameters of negotiations when it comes to members of Congress doing the Peoples work? Are bipartisan agreements necessarily good for the country? The way I see it, the answer depends on the process that is used. The last step of the process is: The People’s principals must not be compromised. Consider: Obama & Congress - Compromise & Consensus found at: http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/obama-congress-compromise-consensus-reid-pelosi-sinclair-rezko-birth-certificate/

The last real bipartisan agreement the Congress reached, biased the commodities market and raised the price of grains almost across the globe and created as starvation panic. The only reason was a state of fear global warming initiative that was based on tree rings and hot spots to mispredict (Green & Armstrong study) disasters. It may have been the Peoples work but it wasn't the Peoples principals. Just refer to all of those that were shouted down for disputing global warming. The decision was elitist based on an agenda rather than scientific analysis. That goes for all involved.

My point is that those aren't only your tax dollars - we all pay tax dollars or through our business, consumerism, or employment generate tax dollars which are a means for government at each level to maintain services and make investments that serve the public interest. Yes the Constitution plus various statues provide a framework for political choices to be made. Why should it be a private company be expected to take on cleaning up the water in a stream by itself while its competitors may not? Government can establish rules for all the competitors to live by and enforce it fairly. We expect oil companies to drill more oil and sell it to us for prices we want to pay - is that realistic or fair? They should and they will sell it to whomever will buy it for a price that suits them - that is the fair exercise of their private interest. If our public interest for us to use more domestic sources of energy we must reach agreement on new policies and incentives to enhance the use of energy sources that will more reliably be of a domestic nature. That's serving the public interest - and yes its not easy to reach those kind of agreements unless people involved are more interested in achieving goals as opposed to keeping arguments alive.