Back to Quack Off

 Quack Off               

by Free Market Duck

Earmarks for Idaho are good but earmarks for Alaska are bad, says Idaho Statesman
(Jan 31, 2008)

“We find Bush's reform rhetoric [regarding the vetoing of Congressional pork barrel "earmarks"] unconvincing.” -- Idaho Statesman Op Ed

Really?  We find the Idaho Statesman's socialist rhetoric regarding all 50 States robbing each other in a hyper-inflationary game of issuing billions of non-backed U.S. Pulp Fiction -- the U.S. Dollar -- extremely naive, disingenuous, and immoral as hell. -- FM Duck

Boise, ID – "My fellow crooks and special interest group prostitutes, in order to provide $7.5 million for the 2009 Special Olympics Circus in Boise, $390,000 for a Boise Detox Center, and $435,000 for a NW Nazarene Nursing facility, I propose to sneak "earmarks" into the Defense Appropriations Bill in the dead of night for the great, wonderful state of Idaho."

   “Yippee!” screams the Idaho Statesman newspaper.  Idaho earmarks are good.

   "My fellow crooks and special interest group prostitutes, in order to provide $50 million for the Bridge to Nowhere, I propose to sneak "earmarks" into the Defense Appropriations Bill in the dead of night for the great, wonderful state of Alaska."

   “Boooo!” screams the Idaho Statesman newspaper.  Alaska earmarks are bad.

   So what’s the definition of a “good” earmark vs. a "bad" earmark?  Isn’t robbery by proxy (earmarks by the U.S. Congress) simply robbery, no matter which state is robbing all the other 50 states?

   President Bush, in his State of the Union address, said he would veto any legislation containing earmarks that lands on his desk.  The Statesman editors went berserk.

   Regarding Bush’s threat to veto earmarks, the Statesman said:  “We find Bush's reform rhetoric unconvincing” and went on to write an 800 word Op Ed about it.

   We agree but it’s so petty why did the Statesman get so pushed out of shape about it?  Everybody knows that President Bush hasn't vetoed ANY Bill that crossed his desk during his first seven years in office.  Why does the Statesman care about what he says now -- especially since it's all probably a lie anyway?

   To understand, you must put on your left Liberal socialist hat…

   The reason the Idaho Statesman went berzerkaroonie at Bush’s veto threat is because he might actually veto the Statesman’s favorite earmark robberies for their local pet projects.  They are afraid he might really do it.  They needed to issue a denial of Bush’s denial.  The editors wanted to convince their readers that some earmarks – the ones for Idaho, or the ones they happen to agree with -- are OK but other earmarks are NOT OK.

   First, the Statesman wants to convince you, the Reader, of the wider philosophical concept that some robberies, such as earmarks, are OK, and second, they want to accomplish what Ayn Rand referred to as:  Obtaining The Sanction of Their Victims.  That victim, dear Reader, is YOU, and the philosophy they are using is called altruistic state collectivism.

   In essence, the Statesman is claiming that the ends justify the means – that is, robbery is OK if the ends are altruistic self-sacrifice of the individual to the collective:  i.e., your tax money for the group, the collective, the Borg, the state, the poor, the children, the old, the crippled, the sick, the wheel chairs, the handicapped, and whatever other need-based group or collective the Statesman can dream up.  Then, the method for collection is to brainwash you into feeling guilty.  Guilty of what?  Guilty of having more than somebody else.  Guilty of having anything.  Guilty for succeeding.  Guilty for existing.  Guilty for working hard and legitimately earning the fruits of your labor.  If you accept the guilt, they win by default, YOUR default.  They win by obtaining the sanction of the victim, YOU.

   And that is the dirty little secret that all left Liberal state collectivists always try to use – whether they consciously know it or not -- to usher in their Sugar Plum Fairy Visions of the Great Welfare State:  infringe upon individual rights (i.e., pretend that earmarks are not robbery), the ends justify the means, convince you of your guilt if you don't sacrifice yourself, or your rights, to the collective, and thus obtain the philosophical sanction of the victim to voluntarily go along with the robbery.  In this case, the robbery is Congressional earmarks and the philosophy is self-sacrifice of the individual and the free market to the collective state.  (In the old days, it was self-sacrifice of the individual to the collective church, now it’s the collective state; same philosophy, different religion.)

   There is no excuse for the Statesman’s position.  Even a fool knows that the hundreds of billions of dollars in Congressional earmarks is deficit spending and somebody must pay for it.  Earmarks constitute a huge debt.  There is no such thing as a free lunch and the Idaho Statesman editors know it.  They also know that all 50 states robbing each other is simply a game of Reciprocal Rip-Off and, in the end, it is inflationary and will destroy the economy.  Earmarks are simply an end run around the U.S. Constitution that forbids states to print up their own money, an end run to let the federal government pay – with inflated, non-backed Federal Reserve Notes -- for local government projects that the states should not be attempting to fund in the first place.

   So, while the Statesman may find Bush's remarks about vetoing earmarks "unconvincing," we find the Idaho Statesman's socialist rhetoric regarding all 50 States robbing each other in a hyper-inflationary game of issuing billions of non-backed U.S. Pulp Fiction -- the U.S. Dollar -- extremely naive, disingenuous, and immoral as hell.

   In addition, it appears that the Statesman has tacitly adopted the concept that the more people who participate in a crime, Democratic Majority Pilfer, the less of a crime it becomes.  And its corollary:  the further removed the recipients of the stolen goods are from the robbery, the less guilty the recipients are for receiving the booty.  Sounds like the guidelines for Pirates of the Caribbean.

   The philosophical crime here is due to a lack of individual rights education on the part of the editors at the Statesman, their apparent disdain for inherent individual rights and freedoms to freely give or exchange, as opposed to the twisted logic behind the alleged “rights of recipients” to receive based upon altruistic “need.”  The economic crime is due to a lack of basic monetary understanding:  i.e., from where does the U.S. Dollar obtain its real value?  Hint:  not from the Federal Reserve and not by growing on cherry trees in Washington, DC.

   Tune in next week when the Idaho Statesman protests President Bush's threat to thwart Goldilocks and the Three Bears' Big Plan to enrich the nation with Free Federal Porridge. -- FM Duck

        back to top...