Why Earmarks Equal MORE Than The SUM of Their Parts

And the tone deaf, head up their arse, don't touch my goodies mentality in Washington continues...

Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, Republican, (conservative?) tries to "school" us big dummies as to why a ban on earmarks is nothing but folly.  This so-called conservative politician points to the fact that earmarks add up to less than a pittance in the scheme of Federal debt.  That is his rationale.  He's a Senator and don't you dare question him! 

What a pompous tool McConnell is.  What year is he living in?  Mitchie, it ain't 2009 anymore.  Does he really think we don't get it?  True, the hard numbers of the cost of all earmarks together is minuscule when compared to the mountains of debt our country has incurred but what Pinch Face doesn't own up to is the fact that all these palm greasings, I mean earmarks, are the usher to big EXPENSIVE unaffordable legislation being passed.  Example: had an Earmark Ban been in effect there would be NO OBAMACARE.  Oh, but to dream.

Earmarks (the Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker Kickback) are the only reason that 2000 page unread monstrosity got through the Senate.  True, those two BRIBES were a drop in the bucket however, the cost brought on by those cheap tips are what really takes costs to the American people to a new level.   For instance, now a majority of states are spending funds to pay the legal fees to prove Obamacare Unconstitutional.  That may well be a state's cost but the Federal Government has to spend oodles to defend the bad legislation too.  Of course, the American Taxpayer is on the hook both for bringing the suit and defending it.  No Dorothy, we're not in Kansas anymore! 

And to add insult to injury, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that OBAMACARE sucks, the administration just waived an additional 111 organizations (mostly unions) from being subject to the rules and regulations of OBAMACARE.  Translation, small companies with no D.C. lobbyists on your payroll, you're screwed.  This act in itself is admission that this "tome of trouble" is nothing more than a job killer (adding exponentially to our debt) yet for a measly couple bucks our representatives in Washington were bought off to vote for it.  In essence, this one example of the REAL cost of earmarks is what must be considered and why earmarks must be banned.

Here's a concept: If a piece of legislation requires a bribe to be voted for, perhaps it's not a law we should be passing in the first place?  Silly thought, I know.   

Are all earmarks bad?  No, some are valid and even worthy but the use of them has spun out of control.   Earmarks are to Congress, what a sip of beer is to an alcoholic. The substance itself is not lethal but the misuse and abuse of it can grow into an addiction that eventually destroys all it touches.  Washington has a serious addiction problem that they are unwilling to own up to.  No matter what side of the aisle one stands, the cold sweats begin en mass when talk of banning their precious earmarks is uttered.

On paper, earmarks are indeed a small amount of the spending problem but I submit that they are the essential catalyst to the explosion of Congressional spending.  Take that catalyst out of Congress's lab and see what happens.  Worse case scenario, without the earmarks, Congress may end up passing nothing and with Congress's recent track record, that may be a very good thing.

UPDATE:  McCONNELL GOT RELIGION!  Will he hold fast or fall from the wagon?  Keep your eyes on this one.