Senator McCain is a Budget Hawk, Except When He Isn't

I've been a sentient political being for 10 presidential elections, and have been eligible to vote in seven of them.  I cannot recall being less excited about a presidential election than I was in 2008.  My objections to Senator Obama were many, and they can be researched deeper at my political blog, The Conservative Wahoo.  However, it was the nominee of my own party that disappointed me most.  I am not a fan of Senator McCain, though I am a huge fan of John McCain (the man).  As a Senator, his support of campaign finance legislation always befuddled me--but it was his annual trips to the well of the Senate to assume the mantle of "chief earmark critic" that bothered me most.  Yes, yes--I know--the symbolic value of ridding the world of pernicious earmarks was wonderful--blah, blah.  But there is a significant downside to the elimination of earmarks, and that is the virtual snuffing out of 535 geographically dispersed centers of innovation, many of which were channeling earmark dollars to promising technologies of all varieties.  As a conservative, I am prone to be somewhat mistrustful of government.  To that end, I do not trust that the bureaucracies within the military charged with the mission of incubating and growing vital technologies ALWAYS got it right. That's where earmarks came in--providing a check on the executive department's monopoly power to pick and choose technological winners and losers.  It didn't seem to matter to Senator McCain that Global Hawk and TLAM were kept alive against the wishes of DoD by Congressional earmarks.  Earmarks were wasteful spending and that is that. 

Fast forward to today, where by some accounts the war in Libya has cost the US upwards of $100M a day.  Senator McCain seems to have left his fiscal discipline behind, as he is the chief leader of the Senate war hawks who pushed the President into acting in Libya, and who now believe that the President's advisable decision to put NATO front and center in the (ill-advised) war was premature and unwise.  So let me get this straight--Congressional earmarks in exciting technologies like directed energy, energy storage and UUV's were wasteful and unwarranted--but waging a war of choice where even the Secretary of Defense believes we have no compelling national interest is a wise expenditure of money?

Not by a long shot.

Bryan McGrath