Sunday, November 14, 2010

BloggeRhythms 11/14/2010

Yesterday I wrote that when it comes to Jet's games, you need only watch the last two minutes, because they always let their opponents stay alive up to almost the very end. A half-hour ago I found out I was wrong about the timing, since the Browns tied the game with two minutes and forty-two seconds to go. Thus, I was forty-two seconds off as a prognosticator.

As far as the game went, it was one more Sunday where I wondered just why I root for this team. I've been with them as a fan since they were the Titans, and then came into their own as the Jets with Broadway Joe. And while it's true they've had spurts here and there of great football, there have been a seemingly endless number of nail-biting losses. But since, as they say, there are no such things as bad wins, I'll just bite my tongue and move on to next week.

There's really nothing much going on in DC, except for the growing concern about "earmarks," which is cash for pet projects that don't go through proper legislative channels. They totaled nearly $38 billion in 2010. That's down by $1.1 billion from the previous year, but quite little to demonstrate budgetary discretion in the current economic environment.

And although Republicans say they want to stop earmarks altogether, neither do they wish untempered spending by the president. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican from Kentucky has said he doesn't want to end them at all because it's not money-saving and would abdicate the Senate's role to the Executive Branch by permitting the administration to decide spending levels for the states.

Senator John Cornyn, Republican from Texas, went a step further, saying if earmarks are going to be eliminated, the money should then go to deficit reduction, That position is supported by Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who appeared with him on CNN.

As far as I'm concerned, until this issue arose in the last few weeks, I knew virtually nothing about the term "earmarks" at all. But now that I've learned a bit on the subject, I'm totally confused. Because it seems that there are laws that say particular amounts of taxpayer's money has to be spent no matter, and all that's being argued about now is, who gets to decide where to spend it.

As most of my readers know by now, I've little to no use for any kind of politicians at all. But, if it's true as far as how these earmarks really work, that they have to take our money no matter what, these guys in Washington shouldn't just be voted out of office...they should be shot.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment