The Redhunter

The letters to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, expose the gulf between lawmakers' public criticism of the overall stimulus package and their private lobbying for projects close to home.

"It's not illegal to talk out of both sides of your mouth, but it does seem to be a level of dishonesty troubling to the American public," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Mr. Bond noted that one project applying to the USDA for stimulus money would "create jobs and ultimately spur economic opportunities."

He and other lawmakers make no apologies for privately seeking stimulus money after they voted against it and continue to criticize the plan: "I strongly opposed the stimulus, but the only thing that could make it worse would be if none of it returned to the taxpayers of Missouri," said Mr. Bond, who is retiring.

But watchdog groups say the lawmakers' public talk and private letters don't square, highlighting a side of government spending largely overshadowed by the "earmarking" process. While members of Congress must disclose their earmarks -- or pet projects they slip into broader spending bills -- the private funding requests they make in letters to agencies fall outside of the public's view.

"There is a definite disconnect between the public statements and the private letters," said Thomas A. Schatz, president of the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste. "It does seem inconsistent to say you're against the bill but then you want some little piece of it."

At a televised meeting with the House Republican caucus late last month, Mr. Obama chided GOP lawmakers who, he said, took credit for projects funded by the same stimulus bill they voted against -- adding that some were even attending ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

This is not the plan, folks.

Before Liberals Get Too High And Mighty...

There is a difference between lobbying for stimulus money and just accepting what comes your way., The former is verbotten, the latter acceptable, and I will explain why.

If a locality refuses stimulus money the Democrats will just send it somewhere else. So it's not like by refusing to accept it the money won't get spent. As such, there is a huge incentive to accept whatever comes your way. If you don't, if you refuse to accept it, every liberal newspaper editorial staff, go nuts in denouncing you. Democrat politicians in your locality go nuts denouncing you.

It all becomes a big game of "who can get the biggest piece of the pie." There is a huge perverse incentive to accept federal money no matter what one's principle's, which is exactly the dilemma the liberals want to foist on us.

So those on the left who chide Republicans are the same ones who would denounce them for not taking stimulus money.

I get why Senator Bond said "the only thing that could make it worse would be if none of it returned to the taxpayers of Missouri," because the man does have a point.

Which is why the entire concept of stimulus money and ear-marks must end. And in this it is the Tea Party people who have the best point of all.