GOP Supports Earmark Ban … for Now
The Hill reports:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced Monday that he will join a GOP effort to ban congressional earmarks.
McConnell went on to state:
And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government.
Perhaps Senator McConnell read columns like this one that appeared over the weekend, because last week he was against banning earmarks.
Appearing to shy from his campaign promise to ban earmarks, Kentucky Senate-elect Rand Paul proposed an alternative: push for funding Kentucky projects during committee hearings. As Brian Doherty says at Reason:
Of course it’s not all that clear that the committee process, which often enough involves blatant horse-trading, is all that much less corrupt than earmarking, but at least it’s a bit more open.
Two days later, Paul clarified his earlier comments to Fox News, saying: “It was confusion over a reporter not understanding what I was saying.”
Perhaps he’s just letting on that there are other, “creative” ways for politicians to funnel your tax dollars to their favorite special interests or state boondoggles.
In any case, it is incumbent on American voters to pay attention to actions, not rhetoric. Talk is cheap and easy, but debt and taxes are expensive, and both cause economic hardship.
McConnell also said: “I’m not wild about turning over more spending authority to the executive branch.”
There may be some truth to this, which means that the people need to pay attention to all the president’s earmarks as well.
Meanwhile, President Obama appeared to contradict McConnell:
I welcome Sen. McConnell’s decision to join me and members of both parties who support cracking down on wasteful earmark spending, which we can’t afford during these tough economic times.
Data from campaign finance watchdog Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) should give us pause before taking all the above rhetoric to heart.
So, if they pass this as a bill, the legislators will not only have to read the bill, they will not be allowed to tack riders onto the proposal: they will not be able to reward themselves or bribe each other, to spend taxpayer money? This future bill is no small thing, event though the earmark percentage of budget is low.
Sir, I await your dissection of Porkulus, which was the ultimate earmark. Obama, when signing it, allowed for the additional earmarks with it, promising to not pass pork again. He campaigned on changing the way Washington does business including earmarks.
If the GOP continues with earmarks they are no better than Dems, continue with earmarks and there will be a third party. People have had enough of a system of law that makes it no better than that of a lot of the third world tin pot dictatorships. Wake up America, wake up on a whole lot of fronts, you are not only losing business but credibility.
Another wake up point, who the hell wants to visit America and have some jerk sticking his hands down your pants or that of your wife and kids?
Is America now like a drunk that has to hit skid row and rock bottom before it wakes up?
The civil war within the GOP is the old battle between Rightists and Conservatives. The Conservatives might be willing to roadblock new govt outrages (maybe, for now) but they will not go for abolishing any existing ones. If you want to roll back socialism in the US, you’re gonna have to re-establish the status quo ante 1913 or so. If not, forget it — you’ve left the foundation for socialism in place, for future construction. As the GOP has shown itself over and over to be ultimately a conservative party, voters wanting to re-establish a Constitutional government will have to form a 3rd party — pure Right-wing, with periodic purging. They might not win elections for a long time, but at least when they do win, they’ll be able to accomplish something more than a temporary slowdown in the process of creating a socialist America.
Blessed be to the sinner who has found God and seeks redemption for his clueless ways.
Um, I’m referring to Mr. Nemerov here, NOT to the Republican leaders in Congress.
Note to readers: Don’t feed this troll. It already messed its diaper over my last article because it doesn’t understand that some articles have a short shelf life, due to the ever-changing nature of writing about current events.
Ignore it and it will go away.
I win. You lose (again). Too bad. Nyah, nyah, na, na, nyah … pftt!!!
no they haven’t really listened, but they now fear for their jobs.
good enough for rock ‘n roll
Step 1: Completed.
Step 2: Hold their feet to the fire so that they know that the first time they sneak an earmark into a bill, they’ll be primaried and lose all their monetary support from fiscal conservatives.
The question is, how long can the American public keep that up? I suspect the Congresscritters are just biding their time till the average American is more interested in Dancing with the Stars than what Congress does.
I guess it depends on how much change the average American can handle.
As a Canadian, I am spending more time keeping an eagle eye on the Albertan
provincial government (because I live in that province) and the Canadian federal government. Why? Because both governments don’t pass the smell test for a number of things.
So, given that television is still a vast wasteland, less people watching will bring some programs to an earlier end. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Right?
Speaking of not getting the message the voters were sending:
Those Democratic blinders must be really thick.
Pelosi and Reid actually do believe they are still in charge.
AND they will be if we are not careful and talk back to their rhetoric and misleading the public
Really.. why does anyone give flying f’k about earmarks? Are you all f’n idiots? 28 billion in a 4 trillion budget.
SHEEESH….. can you say red herring. WOW!!!
I have only heard ONE (1) plausible explain and that was by Ron Pauls kid. Cut earmarks and you cut votes for trillion dollar budget items.. like the bribes obama gave for socialist medicine….. “Nebraska kickback… Louisiana prostitute stuff’ only on a far smaller scale.
Really folks, the scale of the one does not = the angst… or effort better spent on the real problem.
Spoken like a true tax-and-spend lefty.
Replied to as a braindead moran.
Try thinking for just once in your life.
well…it has to start somewhere..with something perhaps we “all” understand and grumble about.
The people that we elect do not need to be “bribed” into doing the people’s business. That is all earmarks represent, bribes.
>The “well I’m not sure I like the bill, but if you’ll give me xxx, I’ll vote for it”…needs to be stopped.
If they cannot follow through on such an obvious thing, they won’t on the more hidden. Something we have to watch.
At least this is a start.
Yes,it has to start somewhere…. how ‘Bout an effective way instead of a red herring feel good way? What that be you may ask.
Well the socialist/progressives defeated Reagan with omnibus spending measures. As unConstitutional as they were .. they were effective in maintaining big government progressive totalitarianism. Mayhap we real thinking conservatives should take a que from that and do the Constitutional reverse.
Let the House pass narrow funding bills. Say on the level of micro-management. Military down to the base and weapon system, SS, each federal “ABC” agency down to how much is paid to every .. ahem “employee”. Let the cockroach in chief veto what the scumbag will.
See where I am coming from? F’k earmarks, there is a turkey to fry. Let us not get distracted by a sideshow which really amounts to nothing.
I ask again: Why do you want the current earmarking to continue?
I believe I have laid out my position quite clearly O exalted one. You just are just miffed I do not give you your due like some elitist leftist demand from their tribe.
That says more about you than I care to contemplate. … WOW …”You ask again’”.. what after a whole two hours passed by.
How liberal elitist you appear. See, we can both do the ad hominem thing on each other.
Now, besides my making it clear that earmarks are such a small amount as to be mindnumbinly minute in the whole picture as to be a laughable … nay a transmogrification of reality as a serious remedy to the problem of “Big Government”. Keep ‘Em.. get rid of ‘Em.. the end result will be the same. As your Sir Lancelot has already demonstrated, they will continue… ah a Rose by any other name.
You are mesmerized by a game of “Three card Monte”. And by god you just “Know’ where that Queen is. Tilt your windmill if you must.
Get back to me when you see the result, and want to champion real change that might actually make a difference.
Your friend
A Simple Bricklayer
P.S. Speaking of getting ones head out of the clouds.
Pragmatically, did it ever occur to you that we might just want to bribe a few votes to secure smaller government spending? In such case spending 18 billion to cut a trillion sounds like a great reason to keep earmarks.
You, Sir…… would unilaterally disarm us.
I’d like to “revise and extend” my earlier remark (to use some Congress-ese).
That remark was actually spoken like a true Concern Troll.
For those who haven’t encountered one before, a Concern Troll is someone–usually a lefty–who comes in and says (more or less like Fantom did above), “why are you worrying about X when there are bigger problems like Y?” Generally this is a (rather transparent) attempt to change the topic off something that could be potentially embarrassing or damaging to an issue or politician that the Concern Troll cares about.
Therefore, Fantom, I would like to ask: what reason do you have for wishing that the current earmark system continues?
The earmarks are the real problem, since they are bribes [enablers] for passing bills. Put these earmarks in their own bills and let the congress vote on them if they can stand the light of day.
There was a time in Hollywood, those in the biz tell me, where every contract, deal or agreement had a “cocaine” clause; e.g., “we’ll pay you X-dollars for this work, plus slip you X-amount of cocaine under the table.”
Earmarks include both money and very specific tax breaks for select groups and individuals. Time to wean the weanies off their cocaine … um, earmarks. And that includes the chief executive branch, as well. This issue is as much about saying “grow a spine, get some principles.” The fact that it might save a few bucks is almost a bonus.
Since you’ve already dug yourself into a hole, Mr. Nemerov, you really out to stop digging.
Your disingeneous, begrudging concession and attempt to save face make you look more foolish.
Forgive my cynicism. But I think it likely that this bill will have all kinds of exceptions tacked onto it… you know, “We ban earmarks” with in the margins “however, this should not be considered an earmark, this earmark is too important to be cut, and we’re tabling this earmark until we’ve had time to further discuss it.” You know the drill. That’s the way Congress works, isn’t it?
It’s a bit symbolic. Here’s where the money really goes:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/taxpayer_receipt?page=2
I’ve heard an estimate that earmarks account for about 2% of the federal budget. It’s undoubtedly a good thing to drag those projects into the light and subject them to scrutiny, but it isn’t going to balance the budget.
When the house is about to be repossessed, it’s way past time to drop the porn channel on your cable subscription.
Absolutely. But it might get a bit silly to ditch the cable channel but keep the two audis in the garage and still take the yearly holiday to monaco.
Have they finally listened? Probably not. It is for us to keep their feet to the fire. Although these are Republicans we are concerned with, they are venerable club members who enjoy their perks and privileges. We must ride them hard, and never hesitate to apply the lash as needed.
Earmarks are NOT the problem!
The congressional [process] that allows unrelated or [indirectly] related ATACHMENTS to any APPROPRIATIONS/BUDGET bill is the problem!
In my opinion there should be a permanent binding rule in both Houses that forbids the attaching of any non related or indirectly related items to ANY bills of appropriation/budget. Make this permanent rule and all the problems of special interest corruption/voting buying attachments, will go away….or require a separate bills and votes IF they makes it past committee to the floor.
Murkowsky is a Democrat in disguise. This liberal will make Snowe look like a normal person.
There have been somewhat surprising recent indications that you might be right about that. But let’s wait and see. She is sending confusing mixed signals at the moment; a woman’s prerogative, I suppose.
Actually, I think she’s more the Arlen Specter/Charlie Crist like of politician… no core principles, she’ll say and/or do anything to stay in power.
Sooner or later, the people of Alaska will catch on, just like Pennsylvanians and Floridians did, and then all her weaseling will come back to haunt her, and she’ll lose the power she so desperately seeks.
You might be right. But I’m still going to reserve judgment until I see how Senator Lisa Murkowski conducts herself after the 112th Congress is convened in 2011.
If that recent election in Alaska showed nothing else, it showed that the majority of the voters in Alaska have more faith, more trust, more admiration, more respect and more confidence in Lisa Murkowski than they have in Sarah Palin, who viciously, spitefully and vindictively sought to sabotage Lisa Murkowski’s campaign for bitchy, senseless, extremely irresponsible, strictly personal and strictly self-serving reasons which were detrimental to the Republican Party …; really, really sleazy reasons which back-fired on Palin and blew up in her face and which will (along with a lot of other baggage) surely come back to bite Palin in her fat ass if she ever runs for POTUS.
You can be sure that Palin lost the respect of a lot of Alaskans and she got herself more enemies than friends when she pulled that smarmy stunt, especially since Palin’s candidate, Miller, is such a weasel. So I’m going to give Murkowski the benefit of the doubt, and put my faith in the judgment of most Alaskans for the time-being or until I see how Murkowski conducts herself next year.
Amen
If the incoming GOP congresscritters will stick together the issue will be moot. The House originates ALL spending and tax bills. If they take a clear non-negotiable stance on cutting spending including banning earmarks, there will be no plausible coalition for a majority in the House to do otherwise.
The ban on earmarks should not be viewed as just an ethics issue based on the “paltry sum” as compared to trillion dollar deficits. The major problem with earmarks is that they are surreptitiously attached to much larger appropriations bills as a means of garnering support for expenditures orders of magnitude greater than the earmarks themselves thus creating the environment we’ve been in since the advent of earmarks culminating in a governing body of members of both parties that have proven themselves incapable of fiscal restraint in the interest of establishing permanent incumbency.
Federal tax dollars appropriated for the benefit of an individual State should be negotiated openly and on the specific intended national public interest that would be served. Few of what now are passed easily, hidden from public scrutiny, would pass an open negotiation process, a small financial benefit based on the expected expenditures involved but a huge financial benefit based on the frivolous and exorbitant appropriations bills that would not be passed without the coercion made possible by the earmark process.
Earmarks must be banned at every level including and most especially the Presidential. That should be one, small, obvious lesson of the Nov. 2nd tsunami and those politicians who haven’t gotten that message, loud and clear, can expect to have a limited future. The Tea Party is far from over.
…. RICO-racketeering congressional mobsters slipped in an estimated $42 Billion in earmarks during Fiscal Year 2010 ….
This amount might be considered a drop in the bucket compared with a One Point Five Trillion Dollar deficit wee it not that the votes that authorized the feral gummint’s squandering of about Two Trillion Dollars worth of the confiscated wealth of its owners, America’s — and therefore the world’s — most creative, innovative, productive and industrious men.
Sometimes we cannot see the woods for the trees.
… were it not that it bought the votes that authorized ….
Fox News, MSNBC, and the Delusions of Jay Rockefeller
John Davison “Jay” Rockefeller IV, more commonly known as Senator Jay Rockefeller, has given further testimony to the need for a mandatory congressional retirement age or, at the minimum, congressional term limits.
The 73 year old liberal Democrat, former governor and current senior senator from West Virginia, has demonstrated once again that either his advancing age or flashbacks from a misbegotten youth spent indulging in magic mushrooms, or both, have addled his aristocratic brain.
How else to explain his bizarre statement during a senate subcommitte hearing: “There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future. It would be a big favor to political discourse . . . and to the American people”?
Is that the sound of dictatorship in the background?
First of all, mentioning FOX and MSNBC in the same sentence clearly shows a woeful ignorance–or is it those shrooms, again?–of the nature of those two cable television news networks, the one, FOX, which presents a wide disparity of balanced news and commentary, the other, MSNBC, which presents an exclusively imbalanced, leftist viewpoint which has become an embarrassment even to its parent company, NBC.
Granted, though balanced with such liberal personalities as Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers, Susan Estrich, Pat Caddell, and Alan Colmes before he hooked his own show, and Harold Ford, Jr. before he headed for MSNBC, FOX does have a conservative slant in that the network features news the liberal stations such as MNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC–and MSNBC–prefer to quash in fear that the viewing public learns the truth.
Secondly, consider what Rockefeller is actually saying . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2711)