Jon Tester is getting pressure from his supporters to "bring home the bacon".
Democratic Sen. Jon Tester has found a more demanding crowd in Montana in recent weeks than the one he left last year as an upstart U.S. senator.
On his first extended trip since taking office, the senator traveled Montana during the congressional recess and everyone wanted a piece of him - and more federal money.
This was something that Conrad Burns was good at particularly since he sat on the Appropriations Committee and was able to ensure Montana was well taken care of.
Money for the state was an issue in his 2006 congressional race against incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns, a Republican who sat on the powerful Senate committee that doles out federal dollars. Burns boasted that he had brought $2 billion to the state over the years and that the state would be worse off if he were defeated.
This became a bad thing according to the Democrat's attacking earmarks as being part of corrupt and dishonest Republican majority.
Tester said he understands there is only so much he can do. He acknowledged that some small requests he had for the highway spending bill were lost in the Senate process, in part, because he got outmaneuvered.So it was bad for Burns to earmark money for Montana, but now it's bad because Tester isn't doing enough to earmark money for Montana???
Republicans, however, criticized Tester for seeking earmarks after making an issue out of such financing for local projects during the 2006 campaign. At the time, Tester said the process should be more transparent.
“People certainly want money coming back into Montana, but more than that they want a senator who is going to be upfront and honest with them,'' said Chris Wilcox, director of the state Republican party.
I don't think that you understand the political process very well Andy. I'll explain to you that there is a big difference between bringing federal dollars back to Montana and the 'earmarks' that Jon Tester addressed in the last election. You see, earmarks are inserted into bills at the last moment for pet projects without over site by the committee where the bill was drafted. These are bad.
ReplyDeleteSince we all pay federal taxes, we count on senators to bring that money back here, we just want them to do it the right way. And not for tribal clients of Jack Abromoff in Michigan.
Shane,
ReplyDeleteI knew I could count on you to spin Tester's earmarks as being good!
Thanks!
I wonder who the client is that secreted almost 4000 dollars to that crook Tester. Finally gave the money back and that crook Tester's, mouth piece, Jay at where-ever, says it wasn't really a bad thing. Only the dark side loones could come up with a spin like this. I think there will be an investigation of that Crook Tester.
ReplyDeleteAndy,
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit of a complicated issue, so you have to think about it a bit. Tester's quote in the election was:
"The current process of earmarking in the middle of the night, without transparency, is the wrong way for representative democracy to be working. Good projects, like this land-grant university, can stand up to the scrutiny of the light of day. Quite frankly, I don’t support earmarks, period.
-
If a project’s a good project, which includes probably most if not all of those 34 earmarks, they could withstand scrutiny in front of the entire Congress. I’m not for earmarks because they don’t pass public scrutiny with the transparency that our government and our forefathers set up."
You see, these 'earmarks' you are talking about are not the things that he campaigned against. They were transparent and out in the open. Big difference.