(Source: Huffingtonpost; The Washington Monthly)

Let me make this clear upfront that my intention is not to make a political statement with this post.  I’m simply trying to find a reason and logic (possibly seek help from others to find these elements in our society).  Today’s Huff post had this article

“…On Tuesday morning, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that she wants to redefine exactly what an earmark is. Specifically, she said, transportation projects should not be placed under the umbrella. Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark,” said the Minnesota Republican. “I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark… There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.” The Star-Tribune notes that Bachmann “did solicit some earmarks when she first came to Congress” but “has been outspoken in pushing House Republicans to continue an earmark moratorium enacted last year.” But transportation funds are vital for job creation. And it seems likely that the reality of having a major spigot cut off is a bit frightening to even the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives on the Hill.

Isn’t that what the White House was trying to accomplish via the Stimulus package – revitalize our nation’s infrastructure with targeted spending? Why did they take so much flak and blame for out of control spending? If such selective exclusions are to be made for one sector (i.e., transportation), why not make it possible for other sectors (i.e., agriculture, education, etc.)?  Does this mean Ms. Bachmann would be supportive of building a High-speed rail network, which is  identified (and funded) by the White House as an important piece of the nation’s future growth strategy, if it is funded as an earmark?  Are Earmarks are bad, unless they’re going to Ms. Bachmann’s district? Cutting spending is good, except for the “legitimate projects that have to be done.”Are we missing something here?

Related articles

• Bachmann Wants Earmarks Redefined To Exclude Transportation Projects (huffingtonpost.com)
• Bachmann explains budgeting as only she can (washingtonmonthly.com)
• The Earmark Game (talkingpointsmemo.com)
• Leave Earmarks Alone (newser.com)
• Obama, Republicans agree: Reform culture of earmarks (ac360.blogs.cnn.com)
• Inhofe says he’ll keep earmarking (politico.com)
• GOP Supports Earmark Ban … for Now (pajamasmedia.com)
• Top Senate Republican joins push to stop earmarks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• After DeMint: How Will Senate Democrats Handle Earmarks? (swampland.blogs.time.com)
• Senate Democrat joins GOP pushing for earmark vote (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Mitch McConnell Changes Course, Moves to Ban Earmarks (politicsdaily.com)
• Conservative senator lauds McConnell on earmarks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Chris Weigant: Tea Party Republicans Win Earmark Fight (huffingtonpost.com)
• Earmark Ban Won’t Get the Federal Deficit Under Control (politics.usnews.com)

(Source: NY Times)

WASHINGTON — Ray LaHood, the secretary of transportation, is not one to toot his own horn over how much he knows about planes, trains and automobile bailouts. On the contrary.

“I don’t think they picked me because they thought I’d be that great a transportation person,” Mr. LaHood says with refreshing indifference as to how this admission might play if, say, he were ever to bungle a bridge collapse.

Yes, transportation is Mr. LaHood’s day job, a post that a few days ago required him to attend a groundbreaking ceremony for a highway in New Hampshire, speak to a group about the dangers of tailgating trucks and discuss “bird strikes” on CNN.

But one of the astonishing things about Mr. LaHood, 63, is how limited his transportation résumé is, how little excitement he exudes on the subject (other than abouthigh-speed rail) and how little he seems to care who knows it. So why exactly did President Obama pick this former seven-term Republican congressman from Illinois to oversee everything that moves?

Mr. LaHood posits a theory. “They picked me because of the bipartisan thing,” he explained, “and the Congressional thing, and the friendship thing.”

The “bipartisan thing” and the “Congressional thing” are self-evident: Mr. LaHood is a Republican with close ties to Capitol Hill. One White House insider described Mr. LaHood as “a master of odd jobs,” whose knowledge of Washington allows him to take on assignments as varied as lobbying lawmakers on the budget and helping political novices in the cabinet navigate Beltway social rituals (“cocktail situations,” as Energy Secretary Steven Chu calls them).

In the White House, Mr. Chu describes Mr. LaHood, a former junior high school social studies teacher, as a source of “fatherly advice” for Washington newcomers like himself.

One “cocktail situation” occurred recently at the annual Gridiron Club dinner. Mr. LaHood was seated at the head table near Mr. Chu, and between Arne Duncan andTimothy F. Geithner, the education and Treasury secretaries. The men asked Mr. LaHood if they could flee the dinner before the interminable speechifying ended. No, Mr. LaHood counseled.

“I said, ‘Look, you’re window dressing,’ ” Mr. LaHood said. “ ‘You’re more of a prop. But it’s part of what we have to do.’ ” Mr. Chu and Mr. Duncan heeded the advice; Mr. Geithner did not.