« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Earmark Battle That Won’t Subside

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  May 21st, 2012 at 10:45 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It seems that every week in Washington brings forth another story of Republicans trying to abjure the moratorium on earmark.  On Friday, the Hill posted an article on the latest and greatest from the earmarxists:

Culberson says he’s been “pounding” the leadership to move on the reforms, as well as “educating” his colleagues on the “urgency” of the situation.

“This is an evolving conversation … This was designed as a temporary ban, and I’m only talking about infrastructure for national security purposes or critical infrastructure. For example, flood control or transportation, that’s critical public infrastructure, which we have no conflict of interest, no personal interest of any kind and is utterly transparent,” Culberson said.

No, Congressman Culberson, this was designed as a permanent ban.

We often hear the arguments from fellow Republicans on how we shouldn’t focus so much on earmarks.  After all, they assert, earmarks are just a drop in the bucket.  Is this really a hill to die on?  The answer is yes – and for several good reasons:

1)      As government has grown exponentially over the past few decades, we have enjoyed very few victories in the battle for limited government.  Our successful ban on earmarks stands alone as one of those few successes.  We should not concede such a hard fought victory.

2)      It’s not about the $500,000 earmark.  It’s about the $500,000 earmark that is used to buy off a conservative vote for a $1 trillion omnibus or some other terrible transformational legislation.  The earmarks are used as the magic “grease” to garner majority support for big-government legislation.  Once we reinstate the practice of earmarking, we will never be able to mobilize a majority within the Conference to oppose any big-government legislation.  Most of them will be seduced into supporting bad legislation through personal earmarks for their districts.  This is the “multiplying factor” of earmarks.

3)      It is precisely because earmarks are “small potatoes” that we must ensure they remain banned from the legislative process.  Why are members clamoring to reinstate these “small” expenditures?  Presumably, because they are feeling pressure from constituencies back at home.  Well, if they lack the courage to say no to these tiny expenditures, how on earth will they have the guts to enact entitlement reform?

It is clear that there is now a concerted effort within the House Republican Conference to slowly ebb away at the earmark ban.  But we have come too far in this fight to cede ground on an issue that few ever expected us to win.  Let’s not retreat from the fight; let’s make the ban permanent.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • ohiohistorian

    For example, when Harry Reid used the language he did to reprogram funding for transportation in Nevada, was that or was it not an earmark?

    I am in favor of not giving any agency the latitude to program funds. Congress should have to tell them specifically how to spend ANY appropriation. This will lead to smaller government, because it cannot be done by Congress with current staff loading, and we as a country should see that Congressional staff are reduced, not increased.

    • acat

      This is not a nebulous term.

      Congress allocates, the Executive spends.

      Your argument, by the way, is weak – the Congress would simply increase staffing, and business in D.C. will continue as it always has.

      Mew

      • fishgod3

        And more staff means more unpaid income tax.

        • ohiohistorian

          Have you ever read a Federal budget? I have to do so; there is so much unspecified slush in the spending that a line item cannot possibly be used to control. You think that the Assistant Secretary for Whatever doesn’t have an “earmark” in how HE will spend the money to favor a friend? What do you think happened in Solyndra?

          Go read the Federal Register. There is so much useless garbage purchased by the Feds that it is crazy. At least with the staff in Congress, you have a little control over the bureaucracy. In the EPA, you cannot fire the bureaucracy, but in Congress you sure can. Staff seldom stick around if there is a party to party. shift.

          You cannot find angels in either the Congress or the bureaucracy. I’d rather have the Congress have the control.

  • notpropagandized

    John Culberson just earned my dedication to have him replaced in 2014 if he runs for Congress again. He will never ever get my vote again, including for this May 29 primary. These guys just don’t get it.

    • notpropagandized

      When they get their earmarks back, they’ll all barter between themselves for one “drug” or another. Most of the states are big enough budget-wise that the Federal Government is unnecessary to administrate nearly anything.

  • gmhunt

    The only way to get rid of earmarks, is to make “lobbying” a crime with an auto-mac jail sentence……..

  • fishgod3

    I liked it better when we called it pork barrel. Pork just sounds so much greasier. So much easier to slip it to the tax payer.A way to grease the skids to get it pushed through.The damm pols need to wear gloves and aprons to handle some of it!!!!!!