Dave Weigel has a good summary up at the Washington Independent about Monday’s televised debate of candidates for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee. Like me, he’s struck by the extent to which Republicans are uninterested in any questions about their conservative ideology, other than to talk about how it’s been insufficiently followed.
Weigel also captures the moment in the debate that shows the difficulties facing candidate Michael Steele, who is the closest thing (though not very close, in my opinion) to a “moderate” in the race. Asked by the moderator, the ubiquitous Grover Norquist, how many guns they owned, the candidates responded:

“Four handguns and two rifles,” said Duncan.
“Too many to count,” said Dawson.
“Seven,” said Blackwell. “And I’m good.”
“Two,” said Anuzis, “but they wouldn’t let me carry them in Washington, D.C.”
“In my closet at home,” said Saltsman, “I’ve got two 12-gauges, a 20-gauge, three handguns, and a 30.6. And I’ll take you on any time, Ken.”
“None,” said Steele.

What a terrible handicap to have in today’s GOP.

At the American Prospect site, Paul Waldman’s written a good summary of the demographic trends that have largely doomed the Republican Party’s ancient strategy of winning national majorities by appealing to the “upoor, the unblack, and the unyoung.” And as Waldman notes, there aren’t too many signs that today’s Republicans understand that the old strategy won’t work anymore.
I’d go a bit further than Waldman, whose main evidence for GOP cluelessness involves the “Barack the Magic Negro” incident. That’s bad enough, but there’s every indication that Republicans (beyond a few smart but powerless intellectuals like Ross Douthat or David Frum) are thoroughly united in the belief that a more rigorous fidelity to conservative ideology in all its particulars is not only consistent with the party’s strategic needs, but is essential to their achievement.
Even RNC Chair candidate Michael Steele, who has consistently condemned Chip Saltsman’s tone-deaf racist “jokes” as damaging to the party, still buys into the idea that there’s an audience of Democratic and independent–and African-American and Latino–voters who would gravitate to the GOP if they understood how thoroughly the party has resolved to eschew “moderate” heresies. The manifesto for his candidacy is very blunt on this central issue:

Moderates in our party, and liberal elements outside it, have tried to steer this debate toward the suggestion that we need to change our core views, desert our convictions and give up our conservative philosophy. This is nonsense. The country did not become liberal on November 4. In fact, just the reverse is true.

So speaks the “moderate” candidate for RNC chair.
This raises a very simple question: is it possible to be rigorously conservative at this particular moment in history while successfully reaching out to demographic categories of voters who either have always been or are trending in the direction of a firm attachment to the Democratic Party? Or to put it another way, are the attitudes that have repelled, say, minority voters truly detachable from conservative ideology?
In my opinion, the true test of these dubious “move right and win more voters” hypotheses isn’t whether Republicans repudiate stupidly racist tactics and messages, but whether they repudiate sophisticated racist tactics and messages that amount to the same thing. And for that reason, it’s extremely telling that none of the candidates for RNC chairman, or any other conservative thinker or talker that I’ve heard, has yet to express any doubts about the demographic impact of the McCain-Palin message down the homestretch of the presidential campaign, which was heavily based on the argument that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party were determined to ruin the country on behalf of its unworthy minority-group constituencies.
Did efforts to promote minority homeownership actually cause the financial crisis? Is a progressive tax code truly “socialist?” Are refundable income tax credits really “welfare?” Is a presumption in favor of the right to vote geniunely “voter fraud?” Are doubts about the Iraq War in fact “treason” or “a failure to support the troops?” Is support for comprehensive immigration reform indeed a matter of subordinating the very idea of citizenship to a crass desire to build a dependent Latino political base? Are women seeking legal abortions carrying out an American Holocaust? Are gays and lesbians determined to destroy the institutions of marriage and family?
All these conservative talking points during the campaign carried all sorts of nasty and exclusive demographic freight, as evidenced by the fact that they were generally delivered by politicians who avoided the more hamhanded “Barack the Magic Negro” types of rhetorical overkill.
This is not to say that conservatives are subjectively racist, homophobic, nativist, or antifeminist. But conservatives need to come to grips with the very real possibility that large elements of their ideology are leading them ineluctably to political appeals that are perceived by people outside their coalition as excluding them or as terribly hostile to their own interests.
All things being equal, it’s probably good for the GOP to avoid sounding like Jesse Helms, to express at least occasional contempt for their talk-radio or Fox TV clowns, to recruit candidates who aren’t white men, and to do all the other practical things “reformers” are suggesting to improve the party’s mechanics and outreach. But all things aren’t equal when it comes to what Republicans need in order to break out of their demographic box. “Moving to the right” or even “clearly conveying core conservative values” are basically attractive to the same old coalition that is now failing the GOP. Perhaps more votes can be squeezed out of the old turnip with better technology, more attractive candidates, and a clearer message. And maybe fidelity to what conservatives consider to be the eternal truth of their ideology is worth losing a few more elections.
But the widespread, almost universal conservative search for anything, everything, other than ideology as the source of the GOP’s demographic problems could well be a blind spot that keeps them wandering in the wilderness, endlessly looking for more attractive ways to package the same product. It would be nice to see a few more conservatives consider that possibility.

Progressive chatterers are in a bit of a stir over reports that the Obama administration’s Great Big Stimulus package could include as much as $300 billion in tax cuts, out of a total figure of approximately $750 billion.
Arguments over this alleged opening position can be divided into those who focus on economics, and on politics (Jonathan Cohn has a good overview of all the arguments at TNR).
Progressive economists, led by Paul Krugman, have largely defended the proposition that some kinds of tax cuts are inevitable and potentially worthy in a stimulus package of this size, if only because it’s tough to come up with upwards of three-quarters-of-a-trillion dollars in spending that (a) will boost consumption and employment immediately, and (b) don’t all represent permanent spending commitments that may be unaffordable in a year or two. And according to much of the guesswork going on right now, no more than a third of the tax cuts said to be in the Obama package are the sort of “business incentives” that Republicans love but that arguably don’t produce short-term economic gains.
The political arguments over offering this level of tax cuts are more interesting. There’s a widespread progressive fear–expressed by Krugman, Cohn, and especially MoJo’s Kevin Drum and Political Animal’s Hilzoy, among others–have expressed that this is an example of that Obama Bipartisanship they’ve been worried about. Here’s Hilzoy:

According to the WSJ, one reason for relying so heavily on tax cuts is that “it may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.” To which I can only say: screw them. Their economic philosophy got us into this mess; we should not let them force us to use ineffective means to get out of it.
If the Democrats can’t keep enough of their Senators in line to get this passed, and corral a couple of Republicans, then we’re in worse shape than I imagine. I’d really rather try to do it right before preemptively conceding to the Mitch McConnells of the world.

I don’t know that I would rely much on the Wall Street Journal to interpret Barack Obama’s political motives at this point, but again, the fear that he would get rolled by Republicans has been a concern in many progressive circles going back to the very beginning of his presidential campaign.
I have a different theory of what may be going on, based on a very different interpretation of Obama’s “bipartisanship” than is common among progressives. If, as I’ve suggested, Obama’s strategy is to pursue a form of “grassroots bipartisanship” that builds broad public support outside Washington, a stimulus package that includes significant and popular middle-class-oriented tax cuts–a centerpiece, lest we forget, of his presidential campaign–makes a lot of sense. It’s Republican, independent, and Democratic constituencies outside Washington–already roiled by the special-interest orientation of earlier “bailout” or “stimulus” measures–that are most likely to welcome tax cuts that actually benefit them, assuming that will represent the bulk of the $300 billion we are talking about.
As for Team Obama’s alleged interest in kowtowing to Mitch McConnell–again, there’s no real evidence to suggest that they’ve made or are willing to make major concessions to get more than a handful of GOP conservatives (which is all they will need if Democrats stick together) on board. Best I can tell, the idea is to move the whole package through the budget reconciliation process, which facilitates big up-or-down votes rather than death-by-amendment. Crafting a package that’s appealing to the public as big, immediate in impact, and focused on both broad national challenges and middle-class pocketbooks is most likely to create the Reagan-1981 dynamic of a coherent “bipartisan” piece of legislation that demands majority support outside and inside Congress. If that’s true, then perhaps the “compromises” supposedly being made in the development of the package are the last, not the first.

I’m ashamed to admit it, but I’m about to waste a few more glorious hours watching a college football bowl game. But those of you who are similarly inclined should definitely read Jonathan Chait’s fine rant at the New Republic site about the egregious self-congratulation of corporate CEOs at these sponsored events, which is particularly annoying at this particular moment of history.
Chait imagines a closet Marxist working for a sports network cutting loose on the air with a few choice remarks:

“Capitalist Pig, last year most of your workforce earned wages that would not allow them to raise a family outside of poverty, while you took home $473 million, including a private jet and your own vacation island. Meanwhile this arrangement is hammered home by the ubiquitous corporate logos plastered over every inch of the stadium. Give me one good reason why the crowd shouldn’t tar and feather you right here on the spot.”

It will never happen, of course, in part because, as Chait observes:

Sadly, all the Marxists are in academia rather than broadcast sports. That’s the problem with Marxists. They’re everywhere you don’t want them to be and nowhere you really need them

Workers, peasants, and progressive couch-potatoes, unite and smash the paper-tiger imperialsts and their liveried lackies at the World-Wide Leader In Sports!

We’re taking another one-day holiday break today, but will be back with some fresh content tomorrow. Hope all TDS readers find the time to enjoy all the New Year’s Day rituals. I got to watch my Georgia Bulldogs finish a frustrating season with a victory. Hope it’s a good omen for 2009 in general!

It’s traditional on the last day of the year to compose lists of notable political developments or personages; J.P. Green’s list of those who deserve a New Year’s toast is a good example, as is Mike Thomasky’s “Worst Americans” list.
I thought it might be interesting to list some widely expected political developments of 2008 that didn’t happen. I’ve had some advice from friends on this subject, which I greatly appreciate.
In roughly chronological order, Dogs That Didn’t Bark included, among others:
Barack Obama is a media-driven flash-in-the-pan whose presidential candidacy will be quickly crushed by Hillary Clinton.
Republicans are desperate enough to remain in power that they will toss social conservatives under the bus and go with a presidential nominee like Rudy Giuliani (or, later on, a vice-presidential nominee like Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge or Condi Rice).
John Edwards’ big head start in Iowa, his netroots support, his “southernness,” and his careful positioning to the left of Clinton and Obama will enable him to emerge as the “true progressive” candidate and benefit from doubts about his rivals.
The “front-loading” of the primary/caucus schedule means you don’t have to win IA or NH anymore.
Ron Paul’s internet-based “revolution” will be the surprise story of the Republican nominating contest.
Al Gore will eventually be drawn into the 2008 race.
Once Hillary Clinton loses a contest, her “inevitability” will vanish and her candidacy will quickly collapse.
Barack Obama’s loss in New Hampshire will send his candidacy into a death-spiral.
The “Bradley Effect” means that Barack Obama will always underperform expectations.
The Democratic nomination will be determined on Super Duper Tuesday.
Democratic “superdelegates” will eventually win the nomination for Hillary Clinton.
Obama’s “wine-track Democrat” profile makes him a sure loser like Adlai and Gene and Bill Bradley.
John McCain’s support among independents is his electoral ace-in-the-hole.
Obama can’t overcome the Jeremiah Wright “scandal” (or the “elitism scandal”).
Angry pro-Clinton PUMAs will throw the general election to McCain.
The Clintons will find a way to undermine Obama and throw the general election to McCain, preserving HRC’s ability to run in 2012.
The “success” of the “surge” will throw the general election to McCain.
Obama’s FISA vote will destroy his netroots support and discourage the Democratic base.
Obama’s candidacy will implode if he chooses a running-mate who supported the Iraq War.
McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running-mate is a “game changer” that will attract PUMAs and white-working-class voters to the Republican ticket.
The “expanded battlefield” strategy of the Obama campaign is a hoax or failure; it will all come down again to Ohio (or Florida, or Pennsylvania).
The Iraq War will prove to be the dominant issue in the general election.
The financial crisis will help McCain by making worried voters focus on experience.
The financial crisis and the first big bailout have absorbed all the federal revenues that might have been available to do anything else.
The general election is guaranteed to “tighten up” in the home stretch.
Polls are meaningless.
Hispanics won’t vote for an African-American, particularly against a southwestern Republican who fought for “comprehensive immigration reform.”
There are too many “Appalachian whites” in Virginia and North Carolina for Obama to win either state.
There’s a tape of Michelle Obama ranting against “whitey” that will eventually doom her husband’s candidacy.
Polls are not capturing the vast and unprecedented size of the “youth vote.”
As Obama’s election grows more certain, there will be a backlash against Democratic congressional candidates out of a popular desire for divided government.
Obama can’t overcome the destructive power of being associated with the “L word” (liberal) or “S word” (socialism).
The electorate that elected Obama president just wanted “change” and is as conservative as ever; his support will drop rapidly during the transition.
I’m sure there are many others I am missing, but even this list shows how often real events confound expectations and expert analysis. That will undoubtedly be true in 2009 as well.

It’s become something of a test of imagination for progressives to adequately express their anger and contempt for the 43d President of the United States as his destructive eight years in office finally come to an end.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert gave it the college try yesterday:

When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don’t think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country

But the bigger kick in the butt to W. (who, like every unsuccessful president, is sure of his vindication by history) is coming from conservative Republicans, the same folk who hailed him as a world-historical titan not that very long ago. Check out this report from the Washington Times:

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing “socialism,” underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush’s administration.
Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.
“We can’t be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms,” said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

There have always been cranky conservatives who viewed the Bush administration–and before it, the Bush 41, Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower administrations–as “liberal,” in the sense that they did not pursue politically suicidal assaults on the most popular elements of the New Deal and Great Society legacies. This goes back at least to Barry Goldwater’s dismissal of the Eisenhower administration as a “dime-store New Deal.”
So it’s not that surprising that many conservatives decided long before the financial bailouts of this autumn that Bush had failed through insufficient fidelity to the Cause; this was the semi-official Republican take on both the 2006 and 2008 electoral defeats.
But “socialism” is a pretty strong word to hurl at a Republican president who so frequently distinguished himself by playing to his party’s conservative base and expressing little but disdain for any Democrat not named Joe Lieberman.
There will inevitably be a few contrarians or sycophants who insist that Bush was a prophet without honor in his own country, though none will probably surpass in sheer hilarity Andrew Klaven’s comparison last summer of W. to the Batman of The Dark Knight.
In general, though, George W. Bush is leaving office without many friends. Unlike his equally failed predecessor, Herbert Hoover, W. can’t point back to the kind of pre-presidential triumphs that earned Hoover the eventually ironic nickname of The Great Humanitarian. There was a time when it sounded like rhetorical overkill when bloggers referred to Bush as the “Worst. President. Ever.” But at present you probably have to go back to James Buchanan for an analogue.
And now Bush is being anathemized by leaders in his own party with the scarlet letter of “socialism.” In the general happiness with which the back of him is being greeted by people all across the political spectrum, you’d have to say that he’s turned out to be a “uniter, not a divider” after all.

The prominent negative role of southern Republican Senators from states with large foreign auto plants in the struggle over the future of the Big Three automakers has spurred some fightin’ words aimed at the South in many progressive circles. I’ve uttered some myself, reflecting a career-long struggle against race-to-the-bottom economic development strategies in my native region.
But some observers have elevated legitimate condemnation of Southern Republican (and in some states, Democratic) economic policy “thinking” into a Unified Field Theory of southern perfidy, which also plays nicely into progressive celebration of the South’s relative political isolation in the 2008 presidential election.
It is exceptionally appropriate that Michael Lind has led this particular charge, in a Salon piece calling for a “Third Reconstruction” of the South by the nation as a whole. Lind, whose M.O. is to pursue vast over-simplifications with equally vast erudition, has been beating the drum against the evil politics, culture and economics of the South for a long time. In a very influential 1995 article in The New Republic (the strange demise of the TNR archives, unfortunately, denies me a link here), entitled “The Southern Coup,” Lind championed the Hamiltonian nationalist tradition against the southern Jeffersonian tradition which, he said, had achieved its apotheosis in the Gingrich-era GOP. So it’s hardly surprising that Lind now seizes on southern “treason” against national economic interests as grounds for a counter-attack: “The choice is simple — the reconstruction of the South, or the deconstruction of the U.S. economy.”
Turns out that Lind’s “Third Reconstruction” involves not federal bayonets but benign items like a much higher national minimum wage, a national preemption of state economic development programs, and–believe it or not–the truly terrible idea of a great big general revenue sharing program.
Playing off Lind’s essay, Paul Rosenberg has done a series of long posts at OpenLeft reinforcing the case for a self-conscious assault on the South’s political culture. Much of what he writes involves an excellent summary of the historical revisionism whereby both southerners and northerners learned to deny or ignore the true nature of the Confederacy and its Slave Power antecedents in the pursuit of an illusory “reconciliation.” But the upshot for Rosenberg is that the South’s “political system” has always been and is now a unilinear reflection of reactionary racial and economic attitudes–and of the class interests of “southern elites.”

What these two historical accounts indicate is the dominant power that Southern elite interests have had in shaping our national political discourse to satisfy their own ends. That race was central was inevitable, but that was only, at bottom, because race was central to their class interests. Controlling black bodies meant controlling white bodies (and minds) as well, as the well-honed politics of resentment assured, generation after generation, after generation. As clearly indicated in the section on Race and Reunion, the ideologies shaped well over 100 years ago are still alive today.

Unfortunately, this take, like Lind’s, oversimplifies, mainly because, like Lind’s, it obscures conflicts within the South–yes, even the White South–past and present.

Read more…

While Paul Krugman is hardly alone in warning of the counter-stimulative impact of state spending reductions, he has uniquely captured the problem in a phrase: “Fifty Herbert Hoovers.”
Citing several state budget-cutting steps, Krugman notes:

[S]hredding the social safety net at a moment when many more Americans need help isn’t just cruel. It adds to the sense of insecurity that is one important factor driving the economy down.
So why are we doing this to ourselves?
The answer, of course, is that state and local government revenues are plunging along with the economy — and unlike the federal government, lower-level governments can’t borrow their way through the crisis. Partly that’s because these governments, unlike the feds, are subject to balanced-budget rules. But even if they weren’t, running temporary deficits would be difficult. Investors, driven by fear, are refusing to buy anything except federal debt, and those states that can borrow at all are being forced to pay punitive interest rates.

Unsurprisingly, Krugman endorses the idea of including “safety-net” expenditures, infrastructure investments, and expanded educational assistance (all of which could have profound ameliorative effects on state budgets) in the impending stimulus package. He does not, I am pleased to report, endorse no-strings general revenue sharing, which could perversely encourage states to take the very steps he deplores.
But he does go on to raise a really important question that hasn’t been seriously discussed in Washington since the beginning of the Reagan administration: does the current intergovernmental system in this country really make much sense?

As a nation, we don’t believe that our fellow citizens should go without essential health care. Why, then, does a large share of funding for Medicaid come from state governments, which are forced to cut the program precisely when it’s needed most?
An educated population is a national resource. Why, then, is basic education mainly paid for by local governments, which are forced to neglect the next generation every time the economy hits a rough patch?
And why should investments in infrastructure, which will serve the nation for decades, be at the mercy of short-run fluctuations in local budgets?

As a veteran of the New Federalism wars of the early 1980s, I can certainly say that nothing about our system of federal-state-local relations has improved in clarity or rationality since the days when former Gov. Bruce Babbitt spoke of an “intergovernmental omelet of scrambled responsibilities.” As always, necessity is the mother of invention, and perhaps we are due another long-overdue look at how we allocate authority and resources among the different levels of government. This time, I hope progressives will lead, not follow, the debate.

Paul Krugman published an excellent New York Times column yesterday on the need to ensure that the significant expansion of the federal government that will accompany Barack Obama’s recession-fighting agenda is itself accompanied by strong measures to avoid corruption and inefficiency.
Citing the FDR precedent, Krugman argues that Obama’s “bond” with the public depends on making government “good,” even in the emergency conditions he will face on January 20:

First, the administration of the economic recovery plan has to be squeaky clean. Purely economic considerations might suggest cutting a few corners in the interest of getting stimulus moving quickly, but the politics of the situation dictates great care in how money is spent. And enforcement is crucial: inspectors general have to be strong and independent, and whistle-blowers have to be rewarded, not punished as they were in the Bush years.
Second, the plan has to be really, truly pork-free. Vice President-elect Joseph Biden recently promised that the plan “will not become a Christmas tree”; the new administration needs to deliver on that promise.

I’d add two thoughts to Krugman’s very important provisos about stimulus spending.
First of all, the best way to ensure that a stimulus package does not succumb to the parochial constituency-tending or vote-buying interests of Members of Congress is to link it systematically to big national initiatives that not only stimulate the economy but also address overriding policy needs that would be compelling even if the economy were not in such bad shape–health care reform, “green” technologies, infrastructure repairs, and even educational improvements. That’s exactly what Joe Biden kept talking about in his recent press conference on the stimulus package–a point that largely got lost in media reports about his promise that the package would not include “earmarks.” Sure, earmarks typically represent parochial spending, but it’s entirely possible to waste large quanitities of money on less-than-priority investments without earmarks. If the entire stimulus package were devoted (for example) to road and bridge repairs and construction, it would involve a whole lot of pork, with or without earmarked appropriations.
Second of all, it’s important to comprehend that the stimulus package is going to represent a vast “good government” challenge not just for the federal government, or for Congress, but for the state and local governments that will inevitably (and properly) be the conduit for major elements of stimulus spending. And that’s why one of the more dangerous ideas kicking around Washington right now is a revival of the Nixonian concept of general revenue sharing for states and localities.
GRS, which was a big Nixon initiative in 1972, and finally expired during the first round of Reagan budget cuts in 1981, involves no-strings federal assistance to state and local governments. There were (and are) three commonly-heard rationales for GRS: (1) it reduces the dependence of state and local government on their own often-regressive and insufficient revenue sources; (2) it offsets the cost of “unfunded (or underfunded) mandates” imposed by the federal government; and (3) it eliminates the inefficiencies associated with bureaucracy-laden “categorical” grants to state and local governments, which often are too narrow to adequately reflect local needs and conditions.
All three rationales are flawed in that the “solution” is poorly tailored to fit the “problem.” States and localities benefitting from GRS have no incentive to address the inadequacies of the tax systems. The best way to deal with unfunded mandates (itself often a misnomer, since some “mandates,” like civil rights compliance or election reform, reflect fundamental responsibilities of government that shouldn’t have to be bribed into existence) is to reduce or eliminate them, not to offset them with untargeted dollars. And there is a vast middle-ground between the kind of maddeningly narrow categorical grants that were popular in the 1970s and GRS, which completely severs revenue streams from accountability for their use.
I couldn’t agree more that the stimulus package should address needs (e.g., health care, infrastructure and education) in which states and localities are heavily involved. And I also strongly agree that helping state and local governments is essential if you want to avoid the counter-stimulative effect of impending state and local cutbacks in services and investments.
But GRS is the wrong vehicle, and might, in fact, enable Republican governors, legislators and local officials to keep their budgets afloat even as they pursue ideologically-driven services cutbacks and stupid tax cut ideas.
It’s entirely possible to provide quick, flexible assistance to state and local governments while insisting on maintenance of their current services and investments and providing basic accountability for the specific results that the assistance is designed to achieve. Maybe that’s what some Democrats who are talking about “revenue-sharing” have in mind, but they need to be clear about it. Nothing would more thoroughly threaten the “good-government” character of Obama’s first big initiative than measures that would fully delegate the power to do good or ill to other levels of government where the kind of parochialism we associate with congressional earmarks are inherent to their scope of responsibility. And I say that as someone who spent more than a decade working at the state level, and harbors no bias against state or localities. While governors, legislators and mayors are typically no worse than their counterparts in Washington, they are hardly infallible, and cannot be expected to avoid the temptation of having their (no-strings federal revenue-sharing) cake and eating it, too.