Local conservative economist, King Banaian, has taken issue with the recent St. Cloud Times editorial written by 6th District candidate Elwyn Tinklenberg. The title (El Tinklenberg -- Pro-Earmark Candidate), which I can only assume is a mistake from a highly educated man or a purposeful misstatement from a man who doesn't teach English, misses the entire point of the piece.

Actually, I take that back! It proves exactly the point that Mr. Tinklenberg was making about living in a black or white, right or wrong, and Pro or Anti world.

Elwyn Tinklenberg:

When 6th District Rep. Michele Bachmann recently pledged not to use the earmarking process to obtain federal funding, she could not have foreseen the emergency closing of a bridge in the heart of the largest city in her congressional district.

Therein lies the problem with taking extreme political positions that leave no room for the unexpected.


The concern is that not all earmarks are "bridges to nowhere."

And the black/white response from the peanut gallery:

But even more interesting is that Tinklenberg, rather than tack towards Bachmann on the earmark question, is willing to take a pro-earmark position.

What? To any honest observer, the Tinklenberg letter reads that not all earmarks are created equal. There certainly are earmarks that could be deemed wasteful but there are also earmarks whose purpose is truly helpful to a district or state. One of those earmarks could help the city of St. Cloud recoup the costs of building a new bridge. This is part of the massive gray area that conservatives refuse to recognize.

But even MORE interesting is that King doesn't mention the fact that the top two earmarkers in the United States Senate are Republicans and two of the top three earmarkers in the House of Representatives are Republicans. Oh, and did King mention that under the "evil" Democratic Congress the earmark process became much more transparent and cut the amount of money spent on those earmarks by 25%? Probably not...

Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann