« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Earmarxists are Back

It’s another week in the Senate, and there’s another battle over earmarks.  Senators Toomey and McCaskill are proposing an amendment to the STOCK Act (“insider trading bill”S. 2038) to permanently ban earmarks in the Senate.  Not surprisingly, there is pushback from Harry Reid…and a number of Republicans as well.

As always, there are those who argue that earmarks are just inconsequential “drop in the bucket” expenditures; that we must focus on more impactful issues.  This from Senator Cornyn:

He continued, “I wish we would focus on what the American people are most concerned about rather than some of these other issues that have their importance but are tangential to the main issues we ought to be focused on.”

“I think we ought to [instead] be looking at other ways to … address people’s concerns about jobs and the debt,” Cornyn said.

Yes, there are more pressing issues, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time.  We can spend a half hour voting on one amendment to scrub earmarks from the Senate once and for all.  Moreover, it is precisely because eliminating earmarks is such an easy, low-hanging fruit that we should deal with it immediately.  If senators are unwilling to relinquish millions in pork projects, how will they have the courage to cut billions from welfare programs and reform entitlements?

There are also the usual suspects who hold earmarks to be a moral and constitutional responsibility.

“It’s just stupid, it’s childish, it’s demagoguery,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said. “There is not a lot of courage in our conference [on the issue.] They all know better. They all know by banning earmarks … they are just giving the authority to the president. But they are afraid of it because people don’t understand the issue out there.”

“We have an obligation as Members of Congress to fulfill our Constitutional duty. One of those duties is to make sure that we do Congressionally directed spending. I object and do not believe that all these decisions should be made at the White House,” Reid said.

Then there’s this gem from the esteemed Majority Leader:

“I’ve done earmarks all my career, and I’m happy I’ve done earmarks all my career. They’ve helped my state and they’ve helped different projects around the country.”

Toomey’s amendment would permanently ban all earmarks, defined as any congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.  It would also create a point of order against any legislation containing an earmark, requiring a two-thirds vote to waive the point of order.

If this is really such a small issue, then we should bury it this week – once and for all.  Find out if your senator is supporting the bipartisan amendment to ban earmarks.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • satchman3

    I used to agree with Inhofe that earmarks are a constitutionally mandated authority of congress.

    We need congress to ban earmarks and implement term limits to mitigate the entrenched power that congress has.

    • http://www.voteforteri2010.com teridavisnewman

      Earmarks are paybacks to big donors. period. That’s why we have ridiculous and wasteful spending–payback to the people to whom our elected officials spend all of their time selling us out.

  • okpensfan

    Money earmarked for pet projects tends to leave a shortfall for core functions which in turn requires the program or agency to request a bigger budget to overcome the shortages caused by the earmarks.

    • bobguzzardi

      The role of Congress is to oversee the bureaucracy, not to micromanage or substitute its judgement for that of a bureaucrat.

      The bureaucracy is there for a reason and serves a real function and if it doesn’t, then don’t fund it.

      What’s wrong with getting rid of low hanging fruit?

  • lineholder

    Somebody needs to get it through their thick skulls that we are way over our heads in debt, confidence in the private sector is low, and they can’t just automatically depend on the resiliency of the private sector to bounce back this time in the same way that it has in the past.

    Okay, so one little piece of low-hanging fruit may not seem like much…just a drop in the bucket. But we’ve got so much low-hanging fruit that if they were to try to go after as much of it as they could, the sheer volume would make a greater difference than it might seem.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      over this issue. I have long argued that the McCain focus on earmarks was misplaced. The issue should be the substantive merits of the appropriation, whether it be via earmark or not. Often, earmarks can be a method of getting votes for bigger projects. More later re endorsement of Santorum going forward (especially given his strong speech to Catholics today re civil disobedience etc)…and until then, my archives are full of cases against making earmarks a major conservative focus, pro or con.

      • JSobieski

        Kind of like focusing on foreign aid when the issue is deficits and debt.

        Frankly, we might be better of if all spending occur in the form of earmarks than the opposite. If nothing else—it would slow things down, and it would humiliate the forces of big government.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          later

        • skorrent1

          n/t

          • JSobieski

            If we had a time machine and could undue every earmark ever passed, we would still have a nationa debt that was in excesss of 95% of our current GDP.

            Do you want to focus on reality, or the photo op?

            I do oppose earmarks (I am in favor of good symbolism), but good symbolism is no substitute for actually addressing problems/

        • auntvick

          nt

      • lineholder

        Do you remember that report from GAO back in Mar 2011 about the duplicate agencies? We’ve got low-hanging fruit there as well. Quite a bit of it. Plus agencies involved in activities that we really don’t need for the time being (especially the ones relating to urbanization projects…but then again, I don’t trust much of anything that is ICLEI-related).

        It probably wouldn’t make much of a difference in the context of our overall debt, but it might make a difference where having confidence in Republicans to be true to their word in at least trying to keep unnecessary spending in check is concerned. And we can use all the confidence-builders we can get right now.

        With yearly expenses now being greater than yearly income, taking the attitude that “a penny saved is a penny earned” is better than doing nothing.

  • skorrent1

    The fight over Obamacare? The Louisianna Purchase? The Cornhusker Kickback? Those were conspicuously bribery. Earmarks are just less conspicuous. NC Congressmen get a Teapot Museum, OH gets a Railroad Museum, Barney and Ron get money for their fisherfriends, and Congress votes for spending hundreds of billions of dollars more than what the “general welfare”, rightly understood, calls for. If they were not permitted to slather money on their favorite friends, perhaps they would be a little less generous to BO’s friends. Spending money is a source of power, and we all know what power does.

  • littletboca

    Great Blog – this is the perfect example of the Old Washington Establishment; most are content basking in the perks from the “Elite Club” and they certainly see no reason to change now.

  • rizkymom

    It is a red herring to stop a bill they do not like without arguing the merit of the bill.

  • carolynr

    We, the taxpayer, through spending OUR money…not theirs are subsidizing their political backers.

    They are there to represent We The People. I can hear the arguments now…they go to improve the community. BS. The Federal Government has certain responsibilities. I have an idea…let’s let all of them ‘EARMARK” the border…how’s that.

  • bobguzzardi

    I am very pleased to say I was an early backer of Pat Toomey in 2004.

    Rick Santorum was an Earmarxist and it was clear that this was special interest legislation directed at a specific, politically favored project. As Rick Perry pointed out, it was over a billion dollars over the course of his Congressional career. That buys a lot of votes and a lot of gratitude when you are out of office.

    Earmarks leverage legislation. There is no reason to think that a Senator has any more expertise than Dept of Transportation or any other bureaucracy as to how to spend money. The bureaucracies have a role and Congress has a role to oversee, not to second guess.

    Entitlements are THE issue but there is no reason that Earmarks cannot be eliminated now.

    Earmarks are as corrosive as insider trading.

  • bobguzzardi

    http://www.clubforgrowth.org/myclub/personal

    The Club for Growth urges all Senators to vote “YES” on Toomey Amendment #1472 to the STOCK Act (S. 2038). The bill is currently being considered on the Senator floor and we expect a vote on the amendment to take place later today. A vote on this amendment will be included in the Club’s 2012 Congressional Scorecard.

  • bobguzzardi

    Daniel “Red Meat Conservative” is one of my favorites among the many outstanding bloggers at RedState, an indispensable go to site for up to date information.

    Comments are, usually, worth reading, too. Unusual for most blog sites.

  • heresjohnny01

    Focus on the $15 Trillion plus debt. And pay it down before you spend any more money on NEW programs.

  • heresjohnny01

    Focus on the $15 Trillion plus debt. And pay it down before you spend any more money on NEW programs.