Matt Gaetz equates sex trafficking investigation with earmarks in Ohio speech

[karynnj]

16. In addition to there being no equivalence, Gaetz may be strategically trying to further demonize

earmarks. While absurdly trying to claim they are as bad as sex trafficking -- which he claims he did not do - he is somewhat accomplishing a goal. Almost everyone will ignore the outrageous attack on earmarks and either attack him on the charges or defend him as not yet indicted.

The fact is that earmarks were eliminated around 2007. At the time, Senators, including Obama, spoke of the difference between earmarks where the Senators (and Congressmen) supporting them are identified and those that are placed in bills (often in conference) without any ownership. To some degree, eliminating earmarks, means the executive branch has the ability to determine where money legislated is actually spent. An earmark - like the University of Chicago hospital - allows the legislature to provide resources to their constituents. A middle position of requiring that they "sign" for the earmark and defend why it is something worth requiring the executive branch fund out of the larger pot of money is very reasonable. It also has the added value that it allows the leadership to hold out a desired earmark as a carrot to get a needed vote on an issue where a Senator is on the fence.

With Gaetz, it is not something based on a serious analysis of the defensibility of earmarks, he is just looking for any sand or dirt to throw into the air - thinking it camouflages his own problems.