I suppose it depends on whether it amounts to an earmark or not, but it sure looks that way to me.
And I'm not sure how Cong. Jim Sensenbrenner can be a deficit hawk on the high-speed rail funding and not apply the same no-go process to the water financing he had supported.
Congressman Sensenbrenner had better make the call to Paul Ybarra asking him to pass a referendum with the citizens of Waukesha as a sign of support for this initiative.
ReplyDeleteHow very embarrassing this would be if Waukesha's citizens said no thanks after the ear marked money was approved. Would the money be given to Chicago? Or, could it be used to develop a local source such as the quarries of the Fox River alluvium?
How about the $100 million given to the Milwaukee water consortium to help Waukesha develop a world class solution to regional water shortages?
Let's be honest here, the $100 million could be used on any water project for Waukesha - not exclusively a Great Lakes diversion. And, if I were associated with any other state on the Council of Great Lakes Governors, I'd be asking THE SAME QUESTION.
The mayoral election in Waukesha was a vote on obtaining Lake Michigan water. Larry Nelson overwhelmingly lost!!!