Jackson Jambalaya

I'm hardly stunned. I think he's the same one who voted for being nice to Cuba once in some form or fashion. I had to email him over that one.

I think it's time he left.

It's the same old story everywhere - "our" senator or congressman is deeply in touch with the needs of his constituents, whereas the other 49 sets of senators and congressman are a bunch of moochers and deadbeats trying to spread our hard-earned tax dollars around other states.

Sid Salter ran some numbers on this on the air a few weeks ago and pointed out Mississippi would come out a big-time loser if earmarks were banned.

I think Boehner proposed a sensible alternative - let each of these earmarks go through a separate, up or down, public vote in the full House. It would be a lot of voting, but if the proposals were worthwhile, and each vote public, I don't see how anyone could complain, since you could always vote out somebody next election if you didn't like their voting pattern.

Can someone provide a breakdown of government monies spent in Mississippi in federal dollars v. local/state dollars? Not saying earmarks are right or wrong here, but to put the debate in context I am curious what it would mean on a practical level, in terms of dollars, if the federal spigot were cut-off from our state.

Uh...If neither the Legislative nor Executive branches can specify where federal appropriations are to be spent, who can?

Earmarks are terrible. Glad he did it.

I'm amused by the argument that MS Senators ought to be for earmarks, because without them, MS would be a "big time loser". A similar argument is that black conservatives are voting against their own interests.

This assumes that political decisions ought to be made with no other consideration than the immediate monetary benefit, and ignores the possibility that an individual or voting population may consider political principles like restricting government power or individual liberty to be more important than their own immediate financial benefit.

Hilarious! You people are underestimating the power of the dollar.

Thanks for shedding light on this subject, KF. This is something that has stuck in my craw for a long time about Mississippi. Yes, we are the poorest state in the country; however, this is, in my humble opinion, because of an extreme lack of entrepreneurism in this state, brought about, no doubt, by the steady flow of federal dollars here over the past 50 years or so. If you look at the states who have received the most federal money over the past half-century (states like Alaska, Mississippi and West Virginia) you can see that federal money does not help the economy that much. For "conservatives" like Thad Cochran to insist on spending government money for parochial interests not necessary for the prosperity of America as a whole is a betrayal of the public trust. It is also hypocrisy of the highest order for one to consider oneself conservative and business friendly while at the same time insisting on making the federal government the ultimate decider of who are the winners and losers in an economy. Some might call that communism, in fact. On the personal level, government welfare creates negative disincentives to work and personal responsibility; on the corporate/business level, it has the same effect. But as long as Mississippians keep appointing its politicians to embarrassing life terms in office, this is what we will get. Remember the old definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We have had tons of federal money for decades and remain the poorest state in the country. Why would more of the same be of any benefit?

Bill George -- I don't know that anyone is underestimating it -- after all, Roger Wicker managed to summon up the courage to vote for the 2 year ban.

Mark, as I am sure even you would acknowledge, some services, e.g., building roads, cannot be cut. And when the federal government isn't going to help pay for it in our poor old state, the ante is going to be upped on the citizens of Mississippi, those with any kind of money, to come up with the tax dollars to pay for it. Perhaps that is fair. Regardless, it won't be pretty.

Cochran stated his position a week or two ago: whose discretion should determine where the $$$ goes, Congress's or Obama's?

I don't know how good an argument that is on the merits, but rhetorically, not bad.

MS got more than twice as much money back as it sent in in tax dollars in 2005.

Wicker was named King of Earmarks and Cochran, I think was third.

Just might want to look at where the federal money has been spent so when it's gone, you'll be prepared to live with the consequences.

i agree with the monetary argument here, but did anyone ever think of the the fda stipulations that the demos sneaked into the bill. the power the government would give to the fda (or create a new beuarocracy) to shut down any producers of food for any reason. This would eliminate small farmers (all of mississippi farmers) through stricter and more expensive guidelines that they would have to follow...

Reality check, people. If earmarks go, then our senators will have to go to the agency and present their case as to why they need the $$$. Then the bureaucratic wheels of fortune will turn and some individual, who has no interest in your district or its issues, will decide whether you get the $$$ or not. We all saw how ell this worked for the Army Corp of Engineers in New Orleans.....

can he be checked for belt-way fever, or even demensia? bound to be one of the above?

9:49 - that is NOT the only alternative. see the last paragraph of my post from 2:08 yesterday about Boehner's alternative. Cochran, for instance, could propose a federal bill to provide $5,000,000 to widen Lakeland Drive in Jackson. Period. That's the entire bill. Then the Senate and House could vote on it. If the majority approves then it goes to the President. If not, it dies. it is totally transparent. This way Congress tells the agencies how they want the money spent; it is just not hidden among thousands of other earmarks in some mammoth omnibus funding bill. It would require a lot more work from congressman (or, more likely, their staff) to decide what to support and what not to support. Horse-trading and favor-swapping would still go on, but it would be transparent, and congressman could be held accountable for each individual vote, as opposed to the current system where they can avoid responsibility for wasting money on a bridge to nowhere somewhere because it was added onto a large bill that they could not vote against because of other essential matters covered by the bill. That's ok, though - make them earn their bloated salaries for a change.

Why the hell would people want to concentrate MORE power in the executive branch of the federal government? No true conservative would! And no Mississippian, conservative or liberal, should!

"Earmarks" are the result of members of Congress doing what the founding fathers intended for them to do.

Those of you who oppose earmarks apparently have no idea how the federal government works. Under the system established by the founding fathers, a member of Congress can simply introduce a bill to fund a project in his state or district. If there is a ban on "earmarks," a senator or representative would need to crawl down to the White House and beg to have the project included in the annual budget request.

Don't be stupid, people. Do you really want all the money to go to California, Illinois, Texas, Florida, New York, and the heavily populated states?

4:07, the proposal is a nothing. You can propose all the bills you are talking about now under current standing.

Well Mark got quiet.

It is an insult to the Founding Fathers to argue that earmarks as we now see them are what they intended...highways to nowhere or monuments to egos were not intended.
The FF had a silly notion that those elected would be honorable and we would hold them accountable.
There are many different ways to improve the current necessity of helping states take on projects they can't do on their own . For example,through the existing bureaucracies( local/state and federal) by creating cost/benefit tests and/or a budget allotments for state infrastructure improvements that have to meet guidelines before they can come up for a vote.
Why are ALL political discussions offering only extreme alternatives these days, hmmmm?

bureaucracies, 3:40? Now that is a dandy. Instead of turing over my retirement to the private side, I'd like to turn mine over to some bureaucrats. Know any I could call?

No sure what in the hell your first paragraph meant but pass the pot. Or second paragraph. Keep passing.

The Constitution does not guarantee there will be no excesses or mistakes. The bridges to nowhere are the fault of the voters, not the Constitution.

The FF did everything they could to prevent the rampant federalism that has overtaken this country. But their concept is Gone With The Wind. The FF did not desire that the federal government would be in the business of "helping states take on projects they can't do on their own."

What strikes me about the last few comments is their take on the founding Flounders; keep taking in the simpleton message and do nothing but complain. This great United States is the greatest experiment ever! Get out of the petri dish and figure out how to change the world.

You "change the world" people need to get in your bunker and take the pill.

Don't know what you are talking about 5:43pm but I'm sure you are making a very important point.

Bleh...