Is there a difference between earmarks at the federal level and at the state level?

In a May 15 article, The Daily Caller (TDC) seems to be trying to whip up some controversy regarding possible GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s apparent inconsistency on the earmarks issue.

Given that Bachmann is a TEA party favorite, this is a serious charge.  TDC notes that she has secured nearly $4 million in earmarks for her district since she was first elected to Congress in 2007.  She also argued to exclude transportation projects from a GOP-championed earmarks moratorium.

These facts are enough to raise eyebrows among TEA partiers and constitutionalists.  I’d like to know how she defends these actions.  Do they undermine the credibility of her TEA Party Caucus on Capitol Hill?

While the answers to these questions are important, TDC raises another issue that got under my skin:

Bachmann’s penchant for earmarks dates back to her days in the Minnesota state Senate. Despite her reputation as a fiscal conservative, from 2001-2006, then-state Senator Bachmann proposed more than $60 million in earmarks, including a $710,000 “Bond For Centerville Local Improvements Around Highway 14? and a $40,000,000 “Bond for Lino Lakes And Columbus Township Highway Interchanges.”

Doug Sachtleben, Bachmann’s communications director, sought to explain the earmarks, arguing that voters resent “taking money from taxpayers in one state to pay for a host of wasteful projects in other states.” He added that voters “also expect that things like road projects should be done at the state level, where voters can have a say through the selling of bonds.” These are not absurd arguments — bridges have to get built somehow — but Tea Party activists may find the argument that earmarks are fine at the state level as appealing as Mitt Romney’s argument that individual health care mandates are fine so long as they are enacted at the state level.

When it comes to government, I believe in the principle of subsidiarity – namely, that any activity that ought to be taken on by government should be taken on by the lowest level of government that can get the job done. 

Road and bridge construction is most certainly not in the constitutional domain of the federal government.  So, what about the other levels? 

Some necessary infrastructure is within the financial means of municipal and county governments.  But the reality is that major projects – highway interchanges, bridges, etc. – can quickly wipe out the treasuries of smaller cities and towns (and the counties containing them).  The money has to come from a higher level.

But think about this: What is a county?  It is an administrative subdivision of… the state government!  Counties are entities created by the state enabling it to govern regions more efficiently.  Likewise, cities are state-created entities.  So, it could be argued that spending at the city, county or state level could all be considered state spending.

This fact – and the principle of subsidiarity – are what make the final sentence in the above excerpt so nonsensical.  Are there TEA partiers who think that the state should not fund highway projects (whether at the request of a local representative or not)?  If there are any, I’d like to hear the logic behind such a position.  I suspect, though, that the author’s “Tea Party activists” are made of straw.

One final thought on the excerpt’s final sentence: There is no equivalence between state funding of transportation infrastructure (a legitimate government concern) and state funding of health care (not a legitimate government concern).

And now, for a completely trivial pet peeve: “Guardrail Damage Ahead”

Here in Texas, whenever someone puts a serious dent in a guardrail, the highway department will send out someone to put up signs alerting us to this fact.

The Texas Department of Transportation’s Maintenance Operations Manual explains when the warning signs should go up:

"Guardrail Damage Ahead" signs should be installed only when substantial damage occurs to guardrail barriers or attenuators which causes them to not function properly.

What the manual doesn’t explain, however, is why this warning to drivers is necessary.

Unless the damage is so severe that the guardrail is sticking out into a lane of traffic, no hazard is posed, so what’s the point?

Whenever I see one of these signs, I say to myself, “Wow, thanks for the warning!  If I lose control of my car here, it might not be safe for me to hit that guardrail.  I must aim for something else.”

And the award for the most reader-hostile major conservative web site goes to…

I’m sure there are others, but I normally have cause to visit Townhall.com every day, and in my opinion, few news/opinion websites are as difficult to read as that one.  Here’s a random screenshot taken today:

Click the image to view it full-sized, or go to the page itself to get the full effect. 

Visually, the page is a riot of images and color.  An unreasonable amount of time is required to find the text that the page was created for.  Once reading, the reader’s eyes are continually hijacked by the oversized animated ads surrounding the text.

I found one flaw in Townhall’s evil design scheme: As soon as I arrive at the desired page, I can immediately go to the print view, which is far less cluttered and far more readable.

Townhall has one of the best daily collections of conservative opinion; that’s the only reason I go through the trouble to visit at all.

What do you think?  Are any other high-profile conservative websites worthy of inclusion in the Web Design Hall of Shame?

A glimpse into the mind of a Sarah Palin hater

An open letter to “Paul”, an individual who left a comment on this post yesterday:

Paul, you're a real piece of work.

This morning as I got ready for the day, I was pondering the fact that your comment seemed to be written as if you hadn't even read what I wrote.

I knew you had arrived at my site via a "Palin resigns" Google search from your computer at Palomar Community College in California.

Your lengthy response -- only FIVE MINUTES after my post -- impressed me. How quickly I had struck a nerve, and now someone was giving me a piece of his mind!

Something still bothered me, though. As my response to your comment indicated, your rejoinder seemed to ignore the points I was making.

This morning I thought: That was a drive-by cut-and-paste comment. He didn't even read what I wrote. He just found sites talking about Sarah, fired his shot, and sped off.

It took mere moments to confirm my suspicion. Comparing the visitor log to the comment, I saw that your outraged response was posted within seconds of your arrival.

Then I did a Google search on the first sentence of your post. Oops, found it here and here.

Busted.

You are a glittering example of how many on the Left* engage in debate. You're happy to participate, as long as you don't have to actually hear the other person’s side of the issue.

Paul, if you wish to read what I actually wrote, and post a response based on what I actually wrote, I’ll be happy to interact with you on the issue itself – even if you disagree with me.

I’m not optimistic that you’ll be back, though. That doesn’t appear to be your style.

You’re more likely part of the defamation machine that has been rolled out against Sarah Palin… in which case your comment does fit in with the topic of my post after all.

Thanks for illustrating my point for me.

End of rant.

* Of course, you could be a Romney supporter or an embittered McCain campaign aide. Odds, however, favor your being a bit further to the left.

"Prom rebel" pretends to be a victim

CBS/AP, May 12:

Tyler Frost, a 17-year-old senior at Heritage Christian School in Findlay, Ohio was warned that that he would face suspension and miss his graduation if he attended his girlfriend's prom at her public school -- but he did it anyway.

The move has resulted in his being labeled him a rebel in some places, but he told The Early Show in an exclusive interview he has no regrets.

"It was worth it," Frost told co-anchor Harry Smith.

Frost signed a contract at the beginning of the school year that prohibits dancing, handholding and listening to rock 'n' roll.

Tyler Frost is shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that the school intends its students to honor the moral behavior contract they sign at the beginning of each school year.

He consciously defies the warnings he was given, and then he is stunned to learn that, unlike him, the school keeps its word.

Now Frost is upset that he won't be able to walk the stage with his fellow graduates:

"It's kind of sad that it has to end this way," Frost said. "I was kind of looking forward to graduating with my class, you know, that's why you put in 13 years of school -- to graduate. And to just, you know, show up one day and just have it taken from you."

Yeah, it's like, you know, this just came right out of the blue, with no warning and no explanation!

Frost's stepfather, in an apparent bid to teach Frost the importance of keeping one's word, hinted that he might sue the school. Way to teach a valuable life lesson in character, Dad!

So, does young Frost think his choice reflects badly on him?

"I still feel I’m a Christian," Frost said. "I believe in the morals they’ve taught me."

Including, I suppose, the virtue of parading your disputes on national television so you can turn public opinion against the one you have a disagreement with.

My regard for Mr. Frost might have gone up a notch or two if he and his stepfather had told the media that this dispute was none of their business, but it's far too late for that.