« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Senators Secretive on DeMint Earmark Ban

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  November 11th, 2010 at 07:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Next Tuesday, the Senate Republican Conference will vote on Senator Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) amendment to the conference rules to ban earmarks for two years.  Some Senators are saying that they are going to hold their powder dry until they look at all the options on the table at the Conference next week. That is not what the rules of the Republican Conference envision and allow.  All amendments to the rules must be shared a week before the meeting pursuant to conference rules.  It is important to note that there is no rule that prohibits members from publicly announcing support or opposition to DeMint’s idea.

According to Politico, the current vote total is very close with many members wavering:

On Wednesday, there appeared to be 14 definite votes in favor of the moratorium – and 13 against it, according to those tracking the vote. Seven senators are leaning toward backing the measure, 11 appear as likely “no” votes. It’s far from clear where three others will come down.

As of yesterday, the DeMint proposal did not have the votes to pass the conference.  This is ironic, because a majority of Senate Republicans voted for Jim DeMint’s two year earmark moratorium on the Senate floor on March 16, 2010.  Senators who refuse to answer a direct question whether they are going to vote in favor of this measure, or say they want to “weigh all the options” are probably going to oppose DeMint.

The Senate Republican Conference rules mandate that members have to distribute proposed rules changes in advance of the meeting, then they are voted upon.  Specifically, the rules require advance notice (which DeMint was required to give for his resolution), so that all Senators can give consideration to the proposals before a vote.  Senators don’t get to roll into the Conference meeting and spring a resolution on the Conference.  You can’t just show up with a resolution and say “Let’s vote on this.”  That is not allowed.

Specifically the Senate Republican Conference rule states:

VIII. These rules may be amended at any time by a majority vote of the Conference, provided notice of the amendment has been given at least one week in advance to every member of the Conference that action will be sought upon the subject to be covered by the amendment (emphasis added)

According to Politico, one Senate Republican was asked if he was going to vote for the DeMint resolution and he said:

I want to see everything that comes up. I don’t know how many different proposals we’re going to have.

The problem with this statement is that any amendment to the Conference rules should have been shared already with members.  The meeting is next Tuesday.  If they have yet to be shared, then they are not to be considered by the conference.  The only rule on the table is the DeMint amendment to the Conference rules.

It is possible that somebody is going to try to amend DeMint’s proposal during the conference meeting, yet that language and plan has yet to be shared with other Senators.  Maybe there is a secret amendment to the DeMint plan that has yet to be shared with all members.  The evasive answers by many Republicans pointing to other secret proposals can’t be a coincidence.

Another Senate Republican also said that he needed to see all options according to Politico.

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 GOP senator in leadership, won’t make any earmark requests this year and didn’t last year. But his spokesman said the senator would wait until next week to view all the ideas on the table before taking a position on the moratorium.

Various new proposals popping up after the notice deadline do not seem consistent with the rules.  Also, one could vote for the DeMint proposal and other conference reform amendments.  The many Senators dodging direct questions about the DeMint Amendment is a danger sign for those who want to see Congress end pork barrel politics.

Wesley Denton, Spokesman for Senator DeMint told Politico:

Republicans in the House and Senate have an opportunity stand against the earmark favor factory next week and unite to fight for an end to pork barrel spending for the entire Congress.  This is an important issue for voters in the last election and we’re hopeful it will pass.

This really should not be a tough issue for members.  I have argued in the past that President Obama has set a trap to paint Republicans as big spending earmarkers.  I have further argued that it is a myth that earmarking does not waste federal monies.   If Senate Republicans are still so in love with special interest projects that they can’t even take a two year break from the wasteful and corrupting practice of earmarking, maybe the Tea Party should take a break from some of them.

The million dollar question about the Tea Party movement is whether they will integrate themselves into the Republican Party or whether they will split off into a new formal political party – the Tea Party.  If the Tea Party movement breaks off into a third party, Republicans can thank Senate Republican Leadership for helping to alienate them by defeating Jim DeMint’s common sense proposal.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Larry Sheldon

    I’ve got a clean piece of paper and a sharp pencil. I’m ready to record who voted for continuing earmarks. Come next election I’ll post reminders somewhere.

    • GreyCloak

      Don’t just post reminders, Vote and ask your neighbors to do the same.

      THIS election is over. New members will soon be swayed to the Dark Side by the Claremont Institute or other lobbyists.

      A few politicians have gotten the idea. Even incumbents who once thought earmarks a great idea, and since “got religion” for the campaign season … but they’ll be back to their old ways now that the election is over.

      Feet … Fire … put them together, and get a responsible Congress.

      • tex41lb

        Where does the Claremont Institute stand on the issues of significance to tea party supporters. Am I misinformed? My perception of the institute is one in support of generic smaller goverrnment and adherance to the constitution. Am I misguided or is the comment by GrayCloak liberal propaganda?

    • Mark Malcolm
  • jimmyneutron

    We try and show them via the latest elections that we are sick and tired of being spent into poverty by a bunch of scoundrels and buffoons, that we are heartily sick of the ‘culture of corruption’ that seems endemic to Wash DC and what do they do – they dance on the head of the earmark pin as if everything is going to stay the same! Why does it seem to be so hard for those people to take a stand on principle and do the right thing? Pathetic!

  • joecollins

    We the People are awake and paying attention. If the elected Republicans think they have a two year joy ride in front of them, they should reconsider who they work for – the people. We elect them,and we can unelect them by running principled conservatives in their next primary . . . against them.

  • http://www.MuskogeePolitico.com jamisonfaught

    With this vote looming, Sen. Coburn wrote an excellent piece in NRO this past week on the topic of earmarks. It merits reading: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253028/earmark-myths-and-realities-sen-tom-coburn

    • GreyCloak

      Great read. Ought to be mandatory.

      • davesinsanantonio

        the Conference next week.

        I hope even more that they listen!!!

  • fpete13527

    …..don’t have the courage to declare their vote. This is NO different than the disgraceful Democratic Congress and their illegal cram down of an illegal ObmaCare Bill.

    You will find out where we stand after we vote. Where have we hear that before? The GOP pork 20 are currently a disgrace. Everyone I know is going to be calling these Senators tomorrow…..extensively…and then some.

    ?Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)
    ?Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee)
    ?Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi)
    ?Senator-Elect John Hoeven (R-North Dakota)
    ?Senator-Elect Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
    ?Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (R-Maine)
    ?Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia)
    ?Senator Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina)
    ?Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
    ?Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
    ?Senator-Elect Jerry Moran and Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)
    ?Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts)
    ?Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch (R-Idaho)
    ?Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana)
    ?Senator John Thune (R-South Dakota)
    ?Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama)
    ?Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)
    ?Senator Richard Lugar and Senator-Elect Dan Coats (R-Indiana)
    ?Senator-Elect Roy Blunt (R-Missouri
    ?Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah)

    • givemefreedom

      Thanks for the up-date. We can immediately begin to inform these senators where “We the People” stand on the issue.

  • Adjoran

    We need to control them so they cannot be inserted into a bill at the last minute without debate or in conference. The rule should be all earmarks must be submitted before the committee begins to mark up the bill, or they will not be allowed, PERIOD.

    Contrary to popular misconception, earmarks of themselves do not increase spending one penny. They merely limit how funds can be spent by the Administration. For example, if Congress wishes to fund replacing the George Washington Bridge, the ONLY way to ensure the Transportation Department doesn’t fund golf cart overpasses at Disney World with the money instead is to EARMARK the appropriation.

    Eliminate earmarks, and you just give unelected bureaucrats more control.

    Now, I do understand the dull of wit tend to fall for flashy but meaningless gestures, just as their attention is distracted by shiny objects, but any symbolic value here is just wasted. Senators will have every opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to cutting spending very soon without being railroaded into voting for a stupid ban which saves no money at all.

    • GreyCloak

      See Above.

      And even I (having been in the belly of the beast) take issue as to what comes first, the appropriation or the earmark.

      Don’t expect much of this Congress (who will probably pass another Omnibus loaded with pork). Commencing next year, perhaps FY2012 will be better.

    • davesinsanantonio

      ignorant at best,
      If an earmark is placed into a non-budget bill, then that money has to come from somewhere.
      If I can only get you to vote for my earmark by voting for yours, then overall spending will increase.
      If you can only get me to vote for non-spending measure by letting me have an earmark, then spending increases.
      If we all get in the habit of attaching earmarks to bills, spending increases.
      If we create a culture that spends money on turtle tunnels and studying sexual behavior in rats, or other such nonsense by passing earmarks for them, the overall culture of spending runs wild.
      So, earmarks do increase spending and sophistry doesn’t change that!

    • givemefreedom

      Our “Liberty” and “Freedom” started with symbolic actions. It is the way it is with changing governments.
      All actions need a place to start, this is a starting point. Changes take more than one committee meeting, changes take more than one day, changes take more than one election cycle. If nothing changes then nothing will change.
      FUNDING comes next.

  • uvbogden

    It is naive and unrealistic to believe that we can change the way Congress does business in one election cycle. It is likely to take a number of cycles to develop a wide enough political base to get government to adopt Tea Party/Conservative principles, including elimination of the earmarking system.

    I learned today that when congressional leadership grant an earmark, they place the earmark in whatever bill the leadership chooses, and the earmarking member is then obligated to vote for the bill containing his earmark. Essentially, this is just another demonstration of leadership (top-down) manipulating the people’s representatives.

    The entire system of congressional rules and structure greatly favors leadership agendas, which is often contrary to the interests of the people. Eliminating earmarks diminishes leadership power and influence, and Washington lawmaker powerbrokers will fight any reduction in their power.

    Total reform of the majority/seniority system, congressional rules and structure leading to power-sharing with the rank-and-file (bottom-up) has been proposed by the Heritage Foundation.

    Other sound proposals for government reform include eliminating the seniority system, term limits, moving congressional members and their retirement funds into Social Security, with the same retirement benefits as everyone else, do away with congressional health plans, and make them obtain health insurance like everyone else in America, and eliminate members voting to increase their salaries.

    Congress must have as a prime motivating factor the interests of their constituents and the country as a whole, instead of being dominated by self or party interests.

    • davesinsanantonio

      we must still fight for immediate change, or things will never change.
      If you tell a politician that you are not going to hold their feet to the fire for two years, that is like an eternity in politics. Remember, politicians are convinced that voters have the shortest attentions spans in the world.
      So, even if we lose on this one issue we need to make our senators feel the heat about it, and keep making them feel the heat about every single issue that is important to us, or they will never change. And, they will either do or allow to be done great additional damage to this country. We cannot trust them to be self-policing–especially the squishes who have a history of spineless, and sometimes slimy, behavior. So, We the People must insure that our representatives truly represent our interests. We the People are still responsible for making it work. We have to tell them clearly what we want, with enough pressure that we actually get what we want–smaller, less costly, less intrusive government.

    • JadedByPolitics

      it is silly to say ANYTHING is unrealistic. They tore apart this Country in a scant two years and I expect nothing less from the Republicans! If they said it, they should do it. If they get a veto then so be it, but at least be on record as having attempted to undoing the horrific legislation that has been crammed down OUR throats for the past two years!

      • chbroussard
  • uvbogden

    1. When Congress votes on an omnibus appropriations bill/budget bill that says how much the government can spend during the fiscal year, they are taking into account the dollars to fund regular bills and programs plus whatever will be needed to pay for all the earmarks that are anticipated. Earmarks directly increase the total Congress appropriates for overall spending.

    2. If Congress wants to fund reconstruction of the George Washington Bridge, they can write a bill that specifies said funding. The bill would go to the floor for debate and a vote by all congressmen. Earmarks are not needed to fund such projects, just support of the membership.

    3. Earmarks are a parasite on the taxpayer and lead to such travesties as the construction of a fleet of fighter planes (billions of dollars for each plane) that the military said they do not need or want because a lawmaker wanted a government contract to go to a business in his state, and made an earmark that accomplished this.

  • stepman

    Big government out, cut spending, de-fund programs, accross the board. What do you not get!

    SECURE THE BORDER, ENFORCE THE LAW, NO AMNESTY, NO SHARIA.

  • azsmitty

    Get in touch with your representative to the United States Senate and remind them the outcome of the latest election was not an endorsement for the Republican party, but a loud alarm sounding the demand to stop business as usual. Remind them that they are a Representative from your state to the Senate of the United States and thus are not a Senator unless they act in a Statemanship like manner. Remind them that they too can have a target for removal like so many of their fellow Representatives had painted on them. Remind them the targeting works on all sides of the aisles. Tell them to remember what happend to former Representative to the United States Senate from the state of Utah, Mr. Bennett. We demand they stop spending and conducting business as usual.

  • spicevalleyroad

    Senators should work for all of America’s betterment. They should not “bring home the pork” to a chosen, select, privileged few.

    • chamberD

      . . . contributions; that’s the ugly truth about earmarks — giving preferential treatment to a few at the expense of the many.

      It’s bribery all the way around, isn’t it? Every which way you look at it, from the local business/corporation promising campaign $ in return for contracts, to the other senators pressing (via earmarks — the dangled carrot) a member to vote x on a given bill. Without agreeing to the vote, the member won?t get the earmark money for the pay off. It?s circular, then, and a very well-oiled mechanism that perpetuates the status quo. No wonder there?s so much resistance to eliminating them; but we have to or we can just fold up our banners and go home to a failed, bankrupt nation.

      Greasing the palm — a never-ending and deeply entrenched system of bribery that vastly expands our national debt — that’s what earmarks are. Just pause a moment to think of how many politicians were elected under this scheme who went on to help enact one boondoggle law after another irrespective of the earmarks that got them elected and re-elected in the first place.

      Earmarks have to go. They’re a national disgrace and corrupt to the core.

  • jenniferjmilleresq

    Anything that greases the skids of bad legislation must be eliminated if at all possible, especially something as crooked as bribes called “earmarks.”

  • chihank

    Huckabee is calling for 20 year moratorium on Earmarks.

    Huckabee opposed TARP, Earmarks, and supports the Fair Tax.

    Huckabee is posturing himself as the Tea Party Candidate.

    • powertothepeople

      a 20 year moratorium on himself speaking. Only way anyone with a lick of sense will take him seriously. Huck should never again run for anything as way too many people are no longer fooled by his pious “I am ” Southern Baptist cries that covered up his true self. Carter use to and still does make the same pious cries.

      He will never even be the official presidents foot washer, much less president.

  • miroco

    Let’ get down in the weeds and discuss the repercussions and ramifica—- WAIT.cancel them all and there is nothing to discuss. I know Goober Graham hates simple, so let’s cancel him too.

  • jnoeagle

    Looks like almost everybody is right – Adding an earmark may not increase the total money intended for a particular designated pot of money. Since the earmark (normally) only designates some “purpose” not otherwise specified in a funding bill and mandates that purpose, directing it be accomplished without adding any specified funds to the overall pot. An “unfunded mandate” if you will.

    However, the budgeting process starts by developing a set of “purposes”, establishes a funding level appropriate to those “purposes” and then is sent through the levels of approval to determine what shall be actually completed and how much funding shall be allowed for all of the set of “purposes”. Any item in the original (as amended while in-process) proposal not approved and not funded is supposedly not going to be completed, or even started. No how, no way, none.

    Therefore, any “unfunded mandate” (see above) must be performed at the expense of the regular approved and funded “purposes”. Which will cause something to fall by the wayside – some “purpose” intended and fully approved. It seems like the use of earmarks or any other similar trick or device is close to a conspiracy to defraud the taxpayers in general, to the benefit of some small group and the defrauding elected official(s).

    Maybe Congresscritters could become straight with their Oaths of Office and the voters they were elected to serve by establishing a fully open method of legalizing these previously little-noticed funding requirements. Like doing a peiodic “earmarks” authorization and funding bill, maybe semi-weekly on the 15th and last of each month, listing all current requests, together with the relevant beneficiaries and elected individuals, the significant details of the projects, and the total approved funds for each project. I am sure groups of taxpayers and lobbyists would spring up around these new Earmarks bills, to expose the details or to obfuscate the details according to their own interests. The elected officials could claim they were doing everything in the open and their skirts were clean. You think??