No More Earmarxists – A Voter’s Guide

As Massachusetts voters, we well understand the conundrum that will be faced by unsuspecting voters across the nation this year.  Is “Republican candidate A” a conservative?  Erick Erickson offers some advice in telling the difference.

For self-described conservatives, it is easy to be pro-life, pro-troops, and pro-tax cuts. In most races, that is not how you separate the wheat from the chaff. You separate them on the basis of their belief in limited government—in short, do they think that government should do stuff. Period. And there is no better bellwether of politician’s proclivities toward limited government than whether they request and defend earmarks.

I know, I know. Many defenders of the Republican establishment don’t want us to talk earmarks. Earmarks are not the problem! They amount to such a small portion of the federal budget. Earmarks are the only way to deal with an intransient bureaucracy. They divide Republicans when we should be focused on battling the Obama Administration’s liberal agenda. Earmarks are the only form of constitutional spending and need to be defended no matter how unpopular. Its about the CONSTITUTION—didn’t you know??

This is a lesson we learned again last week when our new sensation, Senator Scott Brown, voted for a $15 billion jobs bill.  The Boston Herald quoted me as “disappointed”, which is accurate, for myself and many in the Tea Party movement.  I am disappointed but they left out “but not surprised.  Brown is not a conservative.”  We’re disappointed that Brown believes government is sometimes the answer but as informed voters we knew that before we voted for him.  We elected him to block Obamacare.

Yes, earmarks amount to a small percentage of the budget and compared to the enormity of the entitlement crisis of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid they are miniscule. But as Jeff Flake and Tom Coburn have said before, earmarks are the gateway drug to higher spending.

Yes, earmarks afford lawmakers with an avenue to trump some nameless bureaucrat from sending all the federal dollars somewhere else, but then why are you so set on federal dollars flowing to your district? If you believe in limited government, why do you want your district to get its “fair share”?

Yes, Congress does have the power to spend money, but the vast majority of earmarks are spent on completely unconstitutional projects and activities.

Yes, earmarks are “divisive” and making it an issue is bound to put many Republicans in a difficult spot.

Erickson’s point is critical.  Candidates are wooing Tea Party groups all over the nation.  It is buyer beware like never before.  Voting records need to be reviewed – and for those who have not served before, analysis of policy initiatives is necessary.  Is the candidate suggesting more, less or equal government?  If it’s not less government, limited government, shrinking government, move along.  Or at least be pragmatic.  Know well for whom you are voting.  Support enthusiastically those candidates willing to get government out of our lives, with your time & with your money.  I know there are at least a few out there, even in MA.

As spring arrives, the Greater Boston Tea Party will begin distributing our Candidate Questionnaire to state and Federal candidates in MA and we will post the results on this site.  While this is not an endorsement or a guarantee (read my lips…), it is our way of telling candidates for what we are looking.  And it is a great way to hold elected representatives accountable if they do not keep to their word.  We will also encourage candidates to stop in to our Meet Ups and talk with our members in these informal gatherings.  And we will continue to distribute invitations issued exclusively to our membership.  We want voters informed because informed voters make the right decision.

Read the article @ RedState.com.