Zombie Earmarks — You Can’t Kill Them
May 29th, 2011 - 10:45 am
Oh, fer cryin’ out loud:
The defense bill that just passed the House of Representatives includes a back-door fund that lets individual members of Congress funnel millions of dollars into projects of their choosing.
This is happening despite a congressional ban on earmarks — special, discretionary spending that has funded Congress’ pet projects back home in years past, but now has fallen out of favor among budget-conscious deficit hawks.
Every time I think that maybe John Boehner gets it, I see a story like this one and lose all hope. He either needs to shape up (if this slush fund is his doing) or crack the whip on the culpable squishes (if it isn’t his doing).
Politicians never “get it” – they just become more clever in trying to obfuscate their intentions. I mean really, when was the last time a politician changed a fundamental belief as a campaign promise and it actually stuck?
I look at all of the people who voted Republican in the last election (with a few exceptions for solid guys like Justin Amash, Jeff Flake, and you-know-who) and ask myself if this many people actually believed they would get $100 billion in cuts? Really? Seriously? They would up getting about 0.35% of that and they’re surprised? Have they not been paying attention to the last 10 years of behavior from these clowns?
All spending bills must originate in the house. It’s in the Constitution. The President and the Senate can suggest and submit things all they want, but all spending must go through the House. The Republicans control the house. There’s no excuse not to have significant budget cuts already. The fact that they don’t exist proves the Republican politicians as a group simply aren’t that interested or motivated.
All spending bills must originate in the House, but they must pass the Senate and be signed by the President, bit of which are in hostile hands. Anyone who thought we’d turn a corner after last year’s election was delusional. The best we could hope for was to stop taking on water. We control 1/3 of the government. Getting 35% of our initial bargaining position isn’t too shabby.
The next election is key. If Obama wins reelection this whole country is going to come crashing down around our ears. That’s enough reason to avoid letting the liberal media turn a government shutdown into a weeks-long democrat campaign ad.
Finally, this is Boehner’s fault, he’s the leader. If he is unable or unwilling to deal with issues like this we need to find someone who can.
35%? Read again (or look the number up yourself if you don’t believe me). You got about 0.35%. Not even a half a billion out of a hundred billion. If that’s your definition of “not bad,” then start learning this song, comrade: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kdwxFsthI
You’re right, I misread the number. No, 0.35% isn’t good, but my larger point still stands. Castigating the Republicans for not cutting more is like castigating the 101st and 10th Armored for not pushing the Germans back from Bastogne. Our side is nearly cut off. The opposition controls the Senate, the White House and the media. The courts are contested at best. The only option we have is to hold the line and wait for reinforcements in 18 months. And you don’t do that by engaging in suicide charges.
What would you have them do? Shut down the government? And have the media fill the airwaves between now and November with stories about how little Jimmy can’t go to Yellowstone, little Suzy can’t get loans to go to medical school, and CPL Schmuckatelli hasn’t been paid all because of those mean, nasty Republicans.
All that being said, the Republicans don’t get a free pass. They still must hold the line, and this backdoor earmark crap doesn’t cut it. We need to send a message to Boehner that if he can’t reach down and channel his inner GEN McAuliffe we’ll find someone who can.
I’ve got a news flash for you: there’s never a good time. Republicans had complete control of Congress and the White House during most of the GWB administration and managed to not cut spending and massively increase entitlements and the bureaucracy. If somebody is serious about something, they do what they can when they can. I mentioned a specific approach below: they could go back to the pre-80s method of funding different things in different bills (the way it’s supposed to work). The could have done this from the get-go this year. They could have avoided the threat of a government shutdown. But they *choose* not to, going along with the Democratic spin on the subject, and hoping (successfully) that their constituents are either too ignorant or too complacent to care.
Do you really think you’re going to replace Boehner with a spending slasher? Look at how may Republican politicians go along with him. You’re going to have to change a lot of seats to get the establishment out of control, and the excuse will be “well, we can’t do too much of that because then the Democrats might win.”
The funny thing is how self-defeating this is: Republicans can’t take a stand on anything because they are completely without the required body parts (this includes most of their base), and Democrats and a large number of Independents don’t respect the Republicans because they don’t stand for anything. Remember: standing for something requires taking a stand. This should be freaking obvious, but I guess not. And Democrats have some of the same problems, but to a lesser degree. A good chunk of their base is very upset about the continuing wars and erosion of civil liberties. However, on economic issues they are solid and consistent – steal from the “rich” (anybody making over $75,000) and give to everyone else. Expand socialism. As pathetic as they are, the Democrats “win” this one by a landslide. Their base can vote for redistribution and government regulation of bedtime and actually get part of what they want. The Republican’s can’t get crap out of their party, and it’s your fault if you keep voting for them.
My sentiments, exactly, Stephen. Every time I think Boehner and the GOPhers might have the ba…er, spine…to make a strong stand and start fixing things, they do something like this.
As 1-ERS notes, the Rs control the house. They need to cut deep, cut hard, cut now. No excuses. And certainly no earmarks. If Boehner can’t get the job done, then it’s time to boot him out and replace him with someone who has the will and leadership skill to do what has to be done.
I don’t think this can be pinned on Boehner. There’s a couple hundred other people going along with him to make this not happen. Here’s what’s even more deeply concerning:
Back in the 80′s, Tip O’Neil came up with the gimmick of shoving a massive amalgamation of spending into One Giant Bill, to be voted up or down. This meant that if the One Giant Bill contained The Puppy Abuse Prevention Amendment, then anybody who voted against it was clearly for Puppy Abuse, and all kinds of crap started getting rammed through. It would be dirt simple to just go back to “One Bill Per Topic,” but no Republican with any standing has so much as even proposed that rule change. Then we move forward to Nancy Pelosi’s rcent “innovation” of not even passing spending bills anymore, just a series of continuing resolutions. Where have the Republicans been on repealing that little masterpiece? For all of the demagoguing they’ve done, they keep on with the practice. Yes, they’ve submitted a budget that got voted down in the Senate, but they could tell the Dems “No more continuing resolutions – it’s a budget or nothing.” Do they really fear the backlash of forcing the Dems to go back to budgeting so much? This is pathetic.
If the Republicans were serious, they could cut spending, force a budget, or better yet, go back to passing discrete spending bills for each area. They don’t want any of this. They want big government (power), just like the Democrats say they don’t want war or intrusions on civil liberties and then keep voting for them anyway (power). It’s all about power; the various rhetorical bones they throw out are pure crap.
At what point are Republicans (heck, and Democrats for that matter) start believing their own lying eyes and put an end to this?!??
And lo and behold, somebody in Congress does get it. From Justin Amash’s Facebook page:
Justin Amash
Here’s the roll call for the Langevin of RI Amendment 49 to H R 1540, which adds a 55-page cybersecurity bill to the underlying bill. This is not how legislation should be enacted. If the bill has merit, it should get a hearing and go through the normal process, not be tacked on as a rider to an authorization bill. I voted no. It failed 172-246.
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 360
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll360.xml
If you haven’t “friended” Justin Amash on Facebook, then you certainly should. He posts every vote the House takes, how he voted, and why.