, , , , ,

Via FiredUp!, Robin Carnahan’s newest ad goes after Blunt for his earmarking sins:

I have always been a little bored with all the noise about earmarks. I leave the issue to someone like Claire McCaskill who wants to get her kudos in the least controversial way possible. To be sure, I don’t think use of earmarks constitutes good budgeting practice, and they may even have such unexpected effects as, according to a new study, stiffling job growth, but they are also, in terms of expenditures,  pretty small potatoes. Earmarks amount to less than 2% of the federal budget.

However, Carnahan is probably right to go after Roy Blunt over earmarks. She has been, correctly I think, hammering Blunt about the whiffs of corruption he exudes. And, of course, the real problem with earmarks is their potential to contribute to the quid pro quo type corruption that is associated with Blunt. It is far too easy to insert earmark provisions into legislation without oversight – a situation ready-made for wheeler-dealers like our Roy.

Certainly, at the very least, earmarking practices are crying out for extensive, systematic reform, and until Congress does something about it, we will be stuck with “pork-meisters” like Blunt – although, if we are lucky this November, as far as Blunt himself goes,  we might be able to call the whole thing off.