Earmarks built my...

earmark: a provision in Congressional legislation that allocates a specified amount of money for a specific project, program, or organization.

National Writing Project, Reading is Fundamental Program, Center for Civic Education Programs, MN National Guard Counter-Drug Support program, Central Corridor Light Rail Program, Camp Riley Combined Arms Collective Training Facility, Upper Mississippi River System Program, National Rural Water Association, Northstar Commuter Rail Line, breast cancer research program, Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Procurement Technical Assistance Centers, Ultra Light Utility Vehicles for the National Guard, MN National Guard Reintegration Program, Highway 14 construction projects, Hastings Bridge over the Mississippi, Aircraft deicing apron, Wind energy, waste water treatment, City of St. Paul to provide tutoring, mentoring and other educational programs and resources for after-school programs, Minnesota Humanities Center, St. Paul, MN for teacher professional development, which may include honoraria, Sheriffs Youth Programs of Minnesota to expand SYP's program for at-risk youth, Metropolitan State University, St Paul, MN, to expand nursing education, Olmsted County Community Services, to implement and sustain a performance based child protection system preventing child abuse and neglect, Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, Credit Counseling Capacity Building, St. Paul, MN, fire trucks in Eagan, Children's Hospitals & Clinics, for equipment, City of St. Paul to replace the warning siren system that is used to warn the public about tornadoes, terrorism, and hazardous material emergencies...

To name just a few things, in the state of Minnesota, in the past three years. Every state has them; every state gets them; they are sponsored by republicans and democrats, and they are often how we pay for things as a government and a people. Are there bad earmarks? Probably. Just like how the majority of people are good, with a few bad ones. Stuff that's bad stands out. Good stuff doesn't. Good stuff just is, and we rely on it. It does not make news when a bridge doesn't fall down, every day, all over the country.

Mostly, earmarks are only bad when the other guy gets them or when they don't make sense to us, on the surface. That fruit fly research sounded ridiculous, until we found out that it could lead to new understanding in the root of autism spectrum disorders.

This seems like another non-issue, like voter fraud. It certainly is not going to make or break the budget or the deficit. After all, earmarks don't change the amount of money spent or appropriated, they direct it to certain projects, institutions, or organizations. But like every other non-issue, it will get people whipped up into a frenzy, even as they cut themselves off at the ankles.

Famously, the republicans in the Minnesota Congressional Delegation undertook a moratorium on earmarks last year, leaving the democrats to request funds for the republican districts, as was the case when Congresswoman McCollum submitted requests for Congressman John Kline's district. Did you know that, 2nd District?

This is what people don't get: earmarks do things. They build things. They put people to work. They retrain people. They help soldiers re-enter society. They support our teachers, our firemen and women, our police. When a representative declines an earmark or does not request one, in the name of political grandstanding, that individual is doing no harm to him or herself, but does harm constituents. The brilliant thing in the rhetoric is that the constituents don't even have to know.

Now, Congresswoman Bachmann wants to redefine earmarks to not include transportation projects, so she can ask for funding for her district, and not be asking for earmarks.

I see.

Now that you have the ball, the goalposts are over there.

However you look at it, someone has to pay.

Our governor (watch out, America) refused to negotiate on the budget this year, again. If anything includes tax increases, he won't listen to it at all, but he blames the democrats for everything. Since they know he will just veto it, they should not even bother. Thing is, it's Mr. Pawlenty who is being recalcitrant; playing politics instead of being sensible.

He likes to talk about how government needs to live within its means, just like a family. Well, I am thinking that no sane family would sit down to talk about solutions and, out of hand, reject something like, oh, I don't know, raising revenue. Like us. I was cut to 75% at work. Should I have refused the freelance editing project I was offered over the summer?

Someone will always have to pay. Mr. Pawlenty made his own cuts, and many of them will require that my family pay in the end. And most likely, we will be paying more than we would have under the democrats' plan, which raised taxes.

The governor cut 730 million in spending and made up the rest of the 2.65 billion deficit using massive accounting shifts.

I don't know about your family, but massive accounting shifts are not going to help us in any real way here in the McCauley household. I thought that we had pretty much decided that these accounting shifts are gimmicks and are not good for long-term financial health. I could be wrong.

Minnesotans lose 100 million more from state colleges and universities, disabled Minnesotans will receive fewer hours of in-home care, renters' credits drop by 30%, and chemical dependency, emergency housing, and child support grants will be cut, among other things.

The accounting shift is $1.77 billion in education, and is money that will have to be paid back at some future date. Some future date when Mr. Pawlenty is no longer governor.

Here's the thing: if you cut health and human services, does that mean the fewer people need them? If you cut aid to local governments, does that mean that they won't need it? If you cut aid to universities and colleges, does that mean that nothing changes for the students and employees?

Um, no.

It's pushing expenses down and abdicating responsibility, which is what Mr. Pawlenty has been doing for his two terms as governor due to his no-new-taxes pledges. It's all about being able to say that he did not raise taxes but still balanced the budget. It's all about being technically right, which is all you need be when all you need is a soundbyte on the national political stage. Meanwhile, my property taxes go up 12-16% a year or more, even while the value of my house goes down. My school districts have to have referenda to raise money. Tuition goes up for students, and both our jobs are at risk.

And my family is in relatively good shape. What about the people who need health and human services aid? What about renters who rely on that credit? What happens to those who need the help? They will get it somehow, or someway. At some point, the system will have to pay. The need does not go away, it just gets shifted.