Disappointing Kingston Vote

Congress yesterday approved a $1,000,000.00 earmark, which isn’t anything new. What is new, though, is that no one seemed to know if the recipient even exists. In fact, the Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman admitted he had no clue about the existence of the organization, but Jack Murtha wanted it, so he was going to get it.

Rep. Jeff Flake introduced an amendment to kill the earmark until such time as it could be determined that the receiving entity actually existed. The amendment failed 326-98.

It’s a shame Jack Kingston voted to keep the earmark. Being an Appropriator is no excuse.

10 comments

  1. Hortence says:

    Are you really surprised by this? Jack Kingston is just another entrenched politician in Washington DC who abandoned conservative politics years ago.

    Elected in 1992 on a pledge or term limits, now in his 15th year of service, it might be time for Jack to retire.

  2. IndyInjun says:

    What’s NEW?

    Kingston seems to be a great congressman – until you notice that he is a porker, first and foremost.

    Kingston voted for the Medicare Drug Bill, thereby failing the litmus test of fiscal conservatism.

  3. Donkey Kong says:

    “Kingston voted for the Medicare Drug Bill, thereby failing the litmus test of fiscal conservatism.”

    As much as I want to disagree with you, as I don’t like having a one-bill litmus test such as this, I don’t see how I can do anything but agree. This GOP bill is terribly disturbing.

  4. IndyInjun says:

    Ah, I don’t like “litmus tests” on anything, either.

    HOWEVER, that vote was so absurdly and totally against GOP principles, so clearly a breach of the Contract with America, so much a monstrosity of an unfunded liability in the $trillions, so generous with corporate America in REPLACING $billions in private costs with public funds, and so corrupt in gaining its principle proponent Tauzin a $2 million Lobbying job with Big Pharma that it makes a pretty good benchmark as a political abomination.

    I firmly believe that it cost Max Burns his race. I did my part in reminding folks of his vote on it and that he was an impostor of a conservative because of it.

  5. Holly says:

    Indy, I think you’re right about Max, but that was only one of about three things that did us in. I’d say the district really didn’t like some of his trade votes (he’s a free trade guy) and then there were the Max Tax ads. Regardless of how you feel about the Fair Tax, the 2004 Max Tax ads were a gross misrepresentation of the proposal because they suggested that the taxes would only add to existing taxes. There were several articles done in the Savannah Morning News and the Augusta Chronicle to dispute them, but how many folks actually read the newspaper compared to the amount who watch television? The ratio can’t be pretty. And it was a presidential election in a Democratic district, which didn’t help, either. But yes, Medicare Part D was bad for us.

  6. Demonbeck says:

    Jack Murtha is the Chair of Defense Appropriations. If Kingston had voted to kill the earmark, Murtha could have very well struck every Georgia earmark in Defense Approps.

    Jack Kingston may have been forced to decide between the needs of Georgia’s military bases -many of which are in the 1st district – and his principles in this one.

    When you have nothing but principles to stand on, it’s easy to question his vote. Unfortunately, Jack has to look out for the needs of his constituents first.

  7. Icarus says:

    Enough of how that “real world” crap works, Demonbeck. You’re clearly bought off by the establishment and should be thrown off this blog.

  8. IndyInjun says:

    Holly,

    I like to think that I have researched the “Fair????tax” more than anyone in this state, including Boortz and Linder. My conclusion is that it is a con job.

    This being said, Barrow’s ads WERE misleading, yet very, very effective. House Ways and Means Chair Bill Thomas (a REPUBLICAN) held forth on the FT at a House caucus retreat in late 2005 in which he warned GOPers that campaigning on the FT was DANGEROUS for this exact reason.

    Funny, but in the 10th campaign, Broun hawked that he was a FT champion, but also said the rate would be capped at 11%. This AIN’T the Fair???tax as it has a 30% rate (and up and up from there.).

    This is weird. 8 months ago I was celebrating a narrow loss by Burns, but this narrow loss stings a lot.

    Off topic, but what did you do to propagate EVEN MORE DEER? I saw SEVEN fawns around your house last week! About the only thing they would not eat have been campaign signs.

Comments are closed.