I question the wisdom of the recently passed “bailout” legislation. I find it strange that while Americans from all political parties overwhelmingly expressed concern over Congress’s $700 billion bill (see full text), our national leaders rushed to pass it (except, of course, those leaders most vulnerable in the upcoming election). Tammy Bruce (with help from Ed Morrisey) provide a list of new earmarks that helped sweeten the deal, successfully enticing legislators to sign the bill:
Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
Meanwhile, these other earmarks were “extended” by the “bailout” bill:
– Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
– American Samoa (Sec. 309)
– Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
– Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
– Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
– Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
– Railroads (Sec. 316)
– Auto Racing Tracks (317)
– District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
– Wool Research (Sec. 325)
Why didn’t John McCain clearly explain to the American people the cause of the recent problems? At the very least, was it not unwise for McCain to rush to pass the bill when Americans overwhelmingly opposed it? Instead, he first says he will not attend the debate until the crisis is fixed, then he looks weak backing down and attending anyway. He has been running seven points back ever since. If McCain loses, I think this may be the defining issue that helps spawn a new generation of conservative leaders.