Local Newspaper Scolds Congressman for Taking Principled Anti-Earmark Stance

Last week, the Bakersfield Californian’s editorial board hit a new low when it harangued 22nd District Congressman  Kevin McCarthy for refusing on principle to haggle for earmarks.  In pertinent part, here is what the local newspaper argued:

“… as the people of California’s 22nd Congressional District watch cities across the nation cash their federal checks, jump-starting hundreds of projects and putting millions of people to work, we have to ask: Hey, isn’t that our money, too?

… everyone, not just the people who directly benefit, will pay more or less equally to fund those projects. That means 22nd District taxpayers pay just as much as everyone else, whether they actually see any of the bill’s goodies or not.

The best we can do now is retrieve a sliver of our share by funding projects that make sense — projects that create sustainable jobs, that remove burdens from struggling municipalities…”

You may be surprised to learn from this newspaper that everyone pays “more or less equally” to fund federal spending.  That is because, like many of the newspaper’s unexamined assumptions, it’s not true.  I don’t want to engage in divisive talk about giving and taking, but a simple look into the differences in tax revenues in terms of geography might benefit the newspaper.  More importantly, I think as a relatively young columnist and blogger, I expect to be paying off the cost of the previous generations’ extravagant notion of government spending for some time after most of the members of the Bakersfield Californian’s editorial page are retiring to Pismo Beach with their significant income tax days long behind them.  And, I think everyone other than the newspaper has noticed that those earmarked goodies are hardly distributed with an eye towards equality and fairness regardless of how tenacious your congressman is.  I’ll just cross my fingers and hope that the stimulus package contains an equal share of loot earmarked for the benefit of newly-minted conservative bloggers.

Likewise, I don’t want to bicker with the paper’s argument that more stimulus spending will greatly benefit McCarthy’s district or the paper’s assertion that the federal stimulus will be creating millions of new jobs. It’s not clear what a “sustainable job” really means, anyway. But, federal spending in your backyard isn’t always a good thing.  The spending from some federal programs can come with federal strings attached and public projects can realign scarce resources that make private projects people actually want cost-prohibitive and leave the community with one more Bridge to Nowhere and one less entrepreneurial dream come true.

What is worth emphasizing is how disturbing it is, in this era largely devoid of principle, that a young congressman’s newspaper would attack him for taking a stand in support of a principle that most of his constituents believe strongly in.  It is hardly as if McCarthy, whose office is known and respected locally for its relentless and effective advocacy on behalf of constituents’ rights, is too passive in his support of the folks back at home.  McCarthy represents one of the most conservative districts in California, and is hardly alone at home in his thinking that the country is not well-served by excessive and unnecessary government spending in the form of earmarks.  The editorial board, however, seems to think its congressman is not advocating on behalf of his district unless he acts as the gravy train for the local government contacts that feed most of the content of the little newspaper back home.

It’s time to end the feeding frenzy altogether.  If every representative acts the way the paper urges McCarthy to act, spending would spiral out of control and the United States would be left to wonder why it squandered its financial future on federal waste.  This isn’t a matter of obscure information or philosophical truth.  You can call it Kant’s first categorical imperative, the golden rule, or responsible leadership.  If it is wrong for the other politicians to spend federal funds to curry favor back home through the earmark process, it’s wrong for McCarthy.

No matter how inconvenient doing the right thing may be, the local newspaper should demand it from local leaders before relishing in the “government watchdog” mythos.  Rather than rapping McCarthy’s knuckles for refusing to loot the bank, McCarthy and others like him should be commended for doing the right thing.