Quote:
Originally Posted by MTI
Apparently Sen Reid thinks the President over reached in the State of the Union Address.
Like other members of Congress who support earmarks, Reid argues that having a means to direct spending to his district is essential to doing his job. “I have a Constitutional obligation to do congressionally directed spending,” he said. “I know much more about what should be done in Elko, Las Vegas, Nevada than some bureaucrat does back here.”
Is it essential to "do the job" or is it essential for re-election . . . or are the two things intertwined?
|
Spoken like a true elected official. Sure, people get sent to Congress to run the country, but they are also elected to represent the interests of their district. And part of that is making sure that the needs of your district get appropriate consideration in your legislative body. While obviously there has to some reasonable limit on congressionally directed spending, I'd argue that if you weren't trying to get stuff done in your district (whether roads, or parks or constituents problems or whatever), you're doing a crappy job representing your constituents.
Obama's speech is also a good example of why we have three branches of government, and how they're all intertwined to balance each other out. The executive branch gets to take the long view on all of this and advocate against wasteful earmarks, which helps temper the more narrow interests of specific congressmembers.