Cong. Kline: You Need To Represent Us...Not Just Warm a Seat

Dave, you offers some really good observations, insights and suggestions - and deserve a straightforward response. Thanks.

The intersection of County Rd. 5 and Hwy 13 in Burnsville is not a federal project – it is not a matter of interstate commerce and should not be a matter for federal funding. While not as egregious as the Steamtown museum or the Lawrence Welk museum, still not a federal matter for federal dollars.

The problem with ENGAGING is they are not engaging to end it, they are engaging in doing it. Engaging in highway robbery until it is ended does not constitute engaging in ending highway robbery. It is wrong and a symptom of the problem – as Thomas Jefferson said, “sometimes the people are going to need to revolt.” Earmark spending would be a good case for revolt, if only we were repeatedly informed and reminded about the practice. This is what happened with the wanton disregard for American sensibilities related to illegal immigration and Congress got a helpful earful.

I agree with your point that we need to stop the outflow of our dollars as well – come on Congressman Kline – work on the outflow issue like Dave suggests!!

I agree with your point that 90% of the earmark problems would be eliminated if the bills could not be changed coming out of committee – well said Dave. Come on Congressman Kline – work on the post-committee insertion issue like Dave suggests!!

I still don’t understand why the County Rd. 5 and Hwy 13 in Burnsville is a matter for the Federal government. I don’t think it is … I do think it is obvious that the 35W bridge was a matter for the Federal government. So I can’t join you in castigating Congressman Kline refusing to take the money and run for the CR 5 & Hwy 13.

Let me correct on your complete mischaracterization of my view of government versus your view. This is similar to trying to position yourself as “drill responsibly” and your opponents as “drill everywhere”. Dang-nab-it, I am not going to let you do it. I could say your position is “government does everything” in response to your description of me being “government do nothing”.

Here is an accurate portrayal of where we are at regarding this important matter:

You want government to do more – I want government to do less.

Hey, that is okay, different philosophies right? Pretty cool.

And thus, I have helpfully highlighted a couple of points that you have made where I agree with you – and implore congressman Kline to join Ron & Dave in cleaning things up in Congress – despite the fact that I won’t join your condemnation of Kline on the broader topic of this blog.

Good work Dave, you have highlighted a couple of key issues we agree that should be addressed relative to earmark spending.


 

Ron,

As to your points.
1) The Federal Gas Tax is collected from the states and redistributed for interstate commerce...generally for projects that would be cost prohibitive at local levels or are deemed necessary for movement of interstate commerce. I'm not sure of the official reason for why the tax does not stay within each state but I would assume it has to do with population differences. A bridge over the Red River in North Dakota costs as much as a bridge over the Mississippi in Minnesota but the state contributions are certainly disproportionate. What projects get priority is a Congressional decision and each district has its own advocate. Given the nature of politics, this system has inherent flaws but to withdraw from it unilaterally as Kline has done is simply a disservice to his district.

2) The fact that both parties have done it is not an excuse or an argument. It is what it is. You deal with the current system and try to change the flaws...You DO NOT withdraw, YOU ENGAGE. If you look at Kline's method here, it becomes pretty obvious that Kline is more interested in scoring political points rather than any real solutions. The same goes for energy... any and all compromises are rejected.

3) Engaging the flawed system is necessary for a representative. The tax dollars are still collected. The money is still distributed. Is Kline willing to simply ignore Minnesota projects when Minnesota tax dollars are still collected and used elsewhere? That is irresponsible. If that is his principle than he needs to find a way to stop the outflow of our tax dollars, too.

4) Patently false? The American people do not have to engage in deciding what projects are worthy and which are not. That is what we elect these representatives for. Personally, I think 90% of the earmark problems would be eliminated if the bills could not be changed coming out of committee. Last minute insertions by bill authors and committee heads lead to most of the waste -- something both sides have done for years. Forcing additional projects to be voted on by amendment might be time consuming but it would be a more open process.

Earmark spending offends Americans because of the abuses. The use of earmarks, in reality,is necessary to make proper use of our transportation system and one of the most important jobs for a Congressional Rep is to advocate for your district.

Ron, you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government in our daily life. You would prefer it do nothing and I prefer it do more. Maybe we are both wrong and the real answer is somewhere in the middle. But what Cong. Kline is doing is NOT an answer at all.
 

Congresses franking privilege is a separate matter from the earmark spending – let’s not muddy the waters as TwoPuttTommy (TPT) suggests. I can see why Kline wouldn’t adopt the stance TPT offered, observant people understand there is a fine line between a nice guy and a chump. Frankly, this is how politicians avoid actually solving problems – they don’t define the problem being solved, the lump issues and problems together into a mess of ‘spaghetti’ that can’t be effectively solved – and only then do they “solve” them. By the way, the first step in problem solving really is: “Define the problem.”

Starting Points of Disagreement with your Thesis (which I believe you falsely offer as a given or a matter of fact):

1) I don’t agree Congress should appropriate and spend money on what are in essence, state & local projects and amenities – this tendency is a defining example of how our governments (local, state & federal) have become too pervasive.

2) I don’t agree that the argument that both parties have done this in the past is any basis for maintaining the tradition – it is a bankrupt argument.

3) I don’t agree that partaking in a low accountability process (earmark spending), under the pretense that it is the way things are done until things change (denial), constitutes representing the constituents in your district (it is vote buying on borrowed money).

4) Suggesting the Bridge to Nowhere example is compelling evidence about the pathway to ending earmark spending is patently false (it is purely anecdotal) – however, it does provide a piercing insight into America’s true values and sentiments with regards to the vast murky process that is earmarking. Earmark spending offends a majority of Americans sensibilities pertaining to stewardship, prudence, and propriety – but there is simply too much Paris, Britney, and Lindsey in the news for folks to get a true picture, and muster the requisite level of voice indignation required to end this insidious sapping of our treasure.

I believe earmark spending is blight that must be ended – now, but not at its core, the major problem, it is a symptom of the problem. The true basis and motivations for earmark spending are: power, influence, elective success and vainglory.

In this regard, and on this issue, I give a virtual “Honk” for Kline! HONK!


 

Good piece, Dave.


Here's what amazes me about John "Semper Never" Kline; he has no problemo sending out campaign propaganda at taxpayer expense, but a big problemo with transparent earmarks.

Maybe he should adhere to his "no pork" pledge by refunding to the Treasury all the dough he's spent on his campaign pork.