In today's Rock County Herald, editor Lori Ehde captures some classic bluntness in Walz takes names, projects for stimulus package:
"I agree with you that this money should get to the local level," Walz said.
"Local government entities are fairly efficient with funds, because they know where you live. You have an intricate level of understanding of what your needs are in your communities."
He said southern Minnesota is in the nation's top 10 congressional districts with the lowest foreclosure rates among 435 districts.
"You don't borrow if you don't think you can pay it back," he said, "and you don't lend money to someone if you don't think they can pay it back."
He said a good example of a local project benefiting from federal funds is the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System that's piping water from the Missouri River to dozens of communities in the Upper Midwest.
"This project was put in place by local governments whose residents took accelerated taxes to pay for it," Walz said.
"They [Citizens Against Government Waste] named me 'Porker of the Year,' for supporting Lewis and Clark, but I don't give a damn. ... Lewis and Clark was an earmark for my district, but that was 17 billion less than the bonuses that went out with bank bailout."
While Walz is stretching the story a bit, last year CAGW did name him as a top "porker" in water projects (not a porker of the year).
What's deceptive about the posting by CAGW is that while it calls out Walz and other Midwestern representatives like Iowa conservative Steve King, it doesn't explain why their funding request would "Pork," rather than a multi-state project bringing a basic necessity to area residents. Water from the region's wells is often not potable for humans, while actually harming livestock. This lack of a basic need, water, stymies economic development.
Instead, the CAGW article cites other seemingly frivolous projects by name in other districts, thus implying that all spending under the title is equally wasteful. Moreover, the slap doesn't account for the need for the earmarks to begin with. Local communities invested their tax dollarswith the understanding that the federal government would support the project.
They arrived at this understanding based on statements like that made by former President Bush in 2001,
"A priority is to work with states on important development projects. And the Lewis & Clark Rural Water Project is a project that will be in my budget, and something that we can work together on."
Work on the project began in 2003. Much later, Bush zeroed out the projects for Fiscal Year 2009, and the area's representatives and senators--regardless of party--sought the earmarks CAGW now scorns, in order to preserve the investment in local tax dollars. The Sioux City Journal reported in February 2008 that 17 of 20 local communities involved in the project had put down $106 miilon toward the project.
Given the nature of the project and the funding history, we don't blame Walz for not giving a damn what CAGW says--nor why people in the comparatively conservative part of the state voted for the congressman.
Given the nature of the project and the back story on the earmarks, we don't blame Walz for not giving a damn about what CAGW says.
Photo: Was Walz channeling Rhett Butler's famous last words to Scarlett O'Hara when he chastized CAGW? Other than that, we don't see the resemblance. But we like the picture.
Comments