I was looking up some information on Ray LaHood and the money he brings to our community through the earmark system, and I ran across this editorial from Sunday’s Bloomington Pantagraph. (I recommend you read it, as it will make it easier to understand this post.)

It’s titled, “Illinois missing out on federal ‘pork’ feeding,” and the basic thesis is that Illinois pays more in taxes than it gets in federal spending on state projects. In fact, they claim we’re 46th out of the 50 states, receiving “only 73 cents for every $1 its taxpayers sent to the nation’s capital in fiscal 2004.”

What I’m trying to figure out is if they’re for or against earmarks. They say, “Illinois is subsidizing the ‘earmarks’ and ‘pork’ that are helping drive up our national debt.” So, they’re against it, right? But then they conclude by saying:

We’re not holding our collective breaths for any earth-shaking tightening of the reins from lawmakers who like to remind us that these pork projects date back to the days of George Washington.

If the rules don’t change, then Illinois’ representatives should do a better job of feeding with the others at the trough.

This strikes me as highly hypocritical, and puts lawmakers in a “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” situation. If they “bring home the pork,” they’re criticized for driving up the national debt. Yet, if they show restraint and don’t use the earmark system to its maximum, then they’re criticized for subsidizing other states’ pork and not bringing enough to Illinois!

If I were a lawmaker and read that editorial, it would persuade me to just keep on doing what I’ve been doing.