new words

Should a Congressman (or more accurately, his fundraising committee) pay for the extra security costs of hosting the President?

This is an issue that seems to pop up again and again in northern Indiana. With President George W. Bush scheduled to appear at a fundraiser for 2nd-District Republican Chris Chocola on Thursday (2/23), it seems like a good time to honor “The Count” with his own word:

chocola (n) [chawk-Oh-la] One who advocates shifting avoidable financial burdens on to the general taxpayer.

If you’re unfamiliar with the situation, here’s how the Elkhart Truth described Bush’s planned visit:

However, it’s not good for the taxpayers of the city of Mishawaka, who will have to foot the overtime bill for additional security for Bush’s trip. With cities like Mishawaka in a financial bind to begin with, it isn’t fair to ask them to shoulder an unplanned burden like a presidential visit when average residents will see no benefit from the trip. There are no announced public events thus far. [emphasis added.]

The important nuance of “chocola” is that it is a completely unnecessary expense (e.g., a private fundraiser instead as opposed to food) shifted onto the taxpayers. So the next time someone pulls out a Reagan-era “welfare queen” reference, be sure to counter with a “chocola Congressmen” quip of your own.