I just received a response from Congressman Jack Kingston on the criticism he is taking from the blogosphere on earmark reform.

You can view the response on his site. Reading it makes me remember why I left the Republican Party and became a Libertarian.

Here are Kingston's reasons for voting against this change...
- "First, this rule was not “THE” vote on earmark reform, but rather a temporary 3 month patch that applies only to this Congress so that we will need to come back and do another bill."
He is correct. This rule change lasts only for the remaining months of the 109th Congress. It will need to be revisited when the 110th Congress reconvenes in 2007. If there is a Democratic takeover of the House, how likely is it that we will see a vote on it?

Democrats were giving the exact same response that Kingston is giving in voting against this rule change, which was purely political. Need I remind you what Jim Moran's plans for earmarks are should his party win control of Congress.

This rule change is a step in the right direction.

- "Second, the rule doesn’t include the Senate. True earmark reform must encompass both Houses of Congress."
The House of Representatives is not responsible for the Senate's rules. According to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

The House sets it's own rules, as does the Senate, they don't have authority over the rules and proceedings of each other.

I know following the Constitution is a very hard thing to grasp in Washington, but this is a very poor excuse for not voting for this rule change.

- "Finally, this rule does not measure all committees by the same yardstick. For example, had the earmark reform rules passed yesterday been in place, none of the earmark reforms (disclosure, Members names, points of order) would have applied to the pension reform bill which passed before the recess."
Now...one thing I find interest are the earmarks that Kingston listed after this statement. Why list them? As I've documented and as the Club for Growth has documented, Congressman Kingston has voted against all 19 of the Flake Amendments. Why bring up these examples of pork when you have a record of voting to keep projects that are stuffed in legislation?

- "I will continue to fight against wasteful spending, for transparency and for real across-the-board reforms. My vote yesterday was a signal to everyone that we are not finished yet."
There is much room for improvement in the fight for responsible and transparent government. I find myself questioning what side of the fight you are on.

When I saw that you voted against the Flake Amendments, I thought to myself, "He is part of the GOP leadership. He doesn't want to wind up like Westmoreland." I admire Westmoreland for standing for his principles over the party line, even though I disagree with him on many issues. But this rule change was back by a diverse group of members...from Ron Paul to Jeff Flake and from John Boehner to Denny Hastert.

Do you realize that you voted with Jim Moran? We need Congressmen that are going to be on the frontlines for fiscal accountability and economic liberty. You talk a good fight, I'll give you that. But your actions leave much to be desired.

[UPDATE] Welcome, Instapundit readers.