John Culberson: Earmarks Are Efficient!

You would think, after getting poo-pooed by the Houston Chronicle this election cycle, and having the distinction of being one of the poorest electorally performing Republican Congressmen in Texas, John Culberson (R-Houston), would not run around saying things like “Earmarks are wonderful!”

If you think that, you would be wrong.

In an op-ed in USA Today, Culberson is all over earmarks:

As a dedicated fiscal conservative who is committed to the Republican principles of limited government and a balanced budget, I believe “earmarks” can help ensure our tax dollars are spent effectively.

Once again, “Republican” and “balanced budget” are do not mix. Given that Republicans went hog wild with earmarks over the last 12 years, I’m not sure Culberson has the credibility to write such an op-ed, but he evidently has much to say:

Every year, members of Congress are approached by dozens of constituent groups ranging from schools, hospitals, non-profits, city and state governments to the private sector requesting funding for projects or programs. Because members have a strong grasp on the needs of their districts, it is safe to assume they know which projects deserve federal support. Without earmarks, thousands of groundbreaking medical, science, energy and defense projects, along with critical infrastructure investments for flood control and highways, would go unfunded.

As elected and accountable representatives of the American people, members should set high standards for carefully selecting which projects receive federal funding. Personally, my starting answer is “no” on all spending requests, and “yes” has to be earned. I will approve an earmark only if it is absolutely essential and fits within the federal government’s limited responsibilities. I proudly publish all my earmarks and my request letters to the Appropriations Committee on my website.

Yep. “Carefully selected projects.” That’s why Culberson’s colleague Lamar Smith made sure a toilet seat museum (a toilet seat museum!) got millions in Homeland Security funds.
Then, here goes the BBA talk again:

Any debate over meaningful budget reform should start with a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Forty-nine states already have some form of a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. We also need to create a deficit reduction account where all spending cuts can be deposited to help balance the budget.

Oh, please! If Republicans had been forced to live with a Balanced Budget Amendment during the last 12 years, right now the troops in Iraq (if they were even there) would be fighting with those little plastic swords that people serve cocktail weiners on.

It’s interesting that Culberson is renewing the call for a BBA after Republicans operated for the last several years in an envrionment where, if there had been such an amendment, taxes would have been increased by astronomical numbers.