...voters are demanding change. But tax cuts and anything-goes regulation of business, as Republicans want, is not change. If tax cuts and deregulation produced prosperity, the economy would have been soaring, not crashing, two years ago at the end of Bush's term.
It's great news if rejecting earmarks is a sign Republicans are ready to make the hard choices that will be needed to put the economy and federal budget on better footing.
But if, as we suspect, it's just more political posturing, well, Americans should demand more than mere symbolism.
The Courier-Journal added:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's about-face this week on congressional earmarks isn't some sort of revised policy position reached through consideration of new facts or arguments. It's a 180-degree turn on how Kentucky's senior senator has done business, an abandonment of a practice that is at the core of who he is and what he believes his tenure means to this state.
...Earmarks are a mostly symbolic issue. Their most strident foes describe them in terms of spending billions of dollars. Even if all such expenditures were wasteful — and they aren't — prohibiting them would hardly make a dent in dealing with problems that are measured in the trillions. Consider: Simply extending all the Bush-era tax cuts, as most Republicans want to do, would cost about $4 trillion over 10 years.
Symbolic gestures, such as a halt to earmarks, have popular appeal, and they can force the political elite of Sen. McConnell's stature to scurry for cover. But they don't solve big challenges.
