-
Tea Party Is the New Reality
July 23, 2012 | 50 comments
Freedom Watch
Political Greed
“Freedom is a fragile thing,” Reagan said. Introducing Freedom Watch, a new monthly column in which a prominent public figure addresses growing threats to our freedom and what’s being done to defend it — “for it comes only once to a people”
Editor’s Note: “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction,” Ronald Reagan said in 1967. “It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.” This month we launch a new column — Freedom Watch — in which prominent political figures comment on matters connected to this great Reaganite theme, which is being challenged in ways even Reagan may not have anticipated. It’s particularly important that the words with which Reagan completed his thought never have to be tested: “Those who have known freedom and then lost it, have never known it again.”
As strange as it sounds, one of the greatest threats to individual
liberty in the United States is an obscure legislative tactic
called “earmarking.” As you probably know, earmarks are provisions
individual senators or representatives drop into congressional
spending bills to fund specific projects, usually in their home
state or district. Members of Congress insert these provisions to
circumvent the usual process by which executive branch agencies
decide how to spend the funds Congress gives them. Earmarks are the
means by which low-priority projects are funded in favor of
higher-priority projects: you could call it affirmative action for
pork.
Earmarks are also the means by which Americans are conditioned to believe that the purpose of their congressman and senators is to get money for their districts and states. And with all good intentions, earmarks are the means by which our free market is being swallowed by an increasingly socialist state.
Take any bill in Congress that impinges on a sector of our economy or on individual liberty itself, and you will find it festooned with earmarks to assuage the concerns of congressmen and senators otherwise unwilling to accept the slow creep of collectivism.
If a proposed bill is 20 percent over budget and thus falls 10 votes shy of passage, congressional leaders are faced with a choice. On one hand, they can cut the bill’s spending by 20 percent. On the other hand, they can increase spending by another percentage point or two to specifically fund projects in the home districts of those 10 recalcitrant members. If they cut spending, the leaders would risk alienating members already comfortable with the size of the bill. If they increase spending with a few earmarks, the only people who will be upset are cranky skin-flints (like me) who were probably voting against the thing anyway.
Which tactic do you think Republican and Democrat leaders tend to employ? There is a reason bipartisan compromises never seem to shrink government. Advocates of earmarks say they represent a fraction of the cost of underlying bills. But like crack cocaine, earmarks create problems disproportionate to their size.
The great lie at the heart of earmarking is that the projects funded create jobs at all. Take the $1.8 million earmark just passed—as part of a $410 billion spending bill—that funds research into pig odor (no, seriously). Its author argues that the study will, in fact, create jobs for the researchers conducting the project. But the problem is that $1.8 million will have to be first taxed out of the economy before it is redirected to any pig farms.
That $1.8 million, if left in the hands of the businesses and families who earned it, could build new homes for several young families, create dozens of jobs for small businesses, or develop new products and services for innovative entrepreneurs to market. In Washington, politicians talk as if federal money is free—it just appears, like magic. But of course, federal spending must come from somewhere in the private sector. Every job the government “creates” is funded through the elimination of a job (or two) in the private sector.
Voters are never told about that part of the equation. Politicians want them to believe that government spending just creates economic growth and opportunity out of thin air.
That’s why the biggest threat to our economy is not corporate greed—which is restrained by both law enforcement and market competition—but political greed, which is encouraged and even rewarded by our political system. Thus Americans are told that the only thing that can save us is a $1 trillion government spending “stimulus” bill that the Congressional Budget Office reports will be a long-term detriment to our economy. Meanwhile, the policies hidden behind the price tag make us less free, less competitive, and more dependent on a federal bureaucracy only too eager to control more and more of the economy.
As long as representatives and senators see their roles as parochial—as if they swear oaths to fund local projects instead of to protect and defend the Constitution—Congress will continue to drive our nation down the road toward socialism. If we ever do arrive at that unwelcome destination, we will turn around and notice that the road was paved with earmarks.
About the Author
Jim DeMint is a U.S. senator from South Carolina.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (48) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jim DeMint
More Articles From Freedom Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/06/political-greed
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Screwtape Protests
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- A World Turned Right Side Up
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 4.6.09 @ 6:43AM
Okay, so how do we stop earmarks? Most Congress Critters believe "bringing home the bacon" is the road to reelection thus I'd guess term limits might be a solution but that seems an unrealistic expectation.
Deborah | 4.6.09 @ 6:48AM
This is a great perspective, Senator DeMint. Earmarks are basically the camel's nose under the tent of socialism. It was not something that I had considered before...especially as we see these sweeping leaps toward socialism that is the Democrat Party and President Obama.
Thank you for your service, Senator. If only all congressmen actually read and felt the Constitution as you do, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. God bless.
Bram| 4.6.09 @ 7:34AM
How do we stop it?
1. Term limits for everyone in government.
2. A third house of Congress - this one reviews laws and spending passed by Congress and can overturn them with a simple 50% majority. No filibuster, no presidential approval.
These 2 are unlikely to be implemented by politicians, so…
3. Armed revolt to restore the Constitution and implement 1 and 2.
Don| 4.6.09 @ 9:10AM
Sen. DeMint won election by a realtively small margin in SC. His election should have been a slam dunk but his support of a fair tax was demonized by his opponent through misreresentations and lies. (Too bad because a flat tax or a consumption tax is a great idea). If 47%+ of the electorate in a relatively conservative state like SC can be duped into voting for a full fledged liberal, a major problem we face is an education system that needs to be cleansed starting from the bottom.
Big J| 4.6.09 @ 9:25AM
An excellent and inciteful article, Senator. We need more Sentators and Congressment with your attitude in Washington.
Sadly, we already have term limits, but we just don't implement them. It's called an election. Unfortunately, as Don stated, the education level of the electorate prevents the enlightened from imposing our term limits. I believe, as many do that this is an intentional act, starting in Kindergarten, and never ending. Indoctrinating our youth with nonsense like global warming and a "blame America first" attitude throughout the impressionable years has gotten us into the mess we are in. I have often wondered how the Rieds, Pelosis and Franks keep getting elected. It's simple - ignorance. Not stupidity, I know plenty of "smart" people that vote idiots like these (well, not too many, but some). These people are ignorant to their true intentions - to drive us into a socialistic state where they control us at every turn. Power hungry "statists", these people will stop at nothing to advance their agenda.
As an aside, please buy and read Liberty and Tyrrany: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin. What a fantastic book!
Aaron| 4.6.09 @ 9:30AM
Thank you for the article Senator. I hate to say it but I believe the only thing that is going to stop earmarks is going to be a constitutional amendment and while we are at it that same amendment should have term limits, balanced budget and fair tax provisions.
It seems unbelievable that it should resort to such an extreme measure, but many of our own conservatives head off to Washington with a bag full of earmarks waiting for the right moment to swoop in and attach. Of course then they get to have their full toothy grin on the front page of their home town paper claiming victory in the name of pig S@#t.
KC| 4.6.09 @ 10:51AM
Has DeMint ever earmarked?
Inquiring minds want to know...
carlton| 4.6.09 @ 11:05AM
An excellant piece of work. This it the type of thing the general public has to be taught _ about the way our government functions. The last paragraph is a home run. Thanks Mr. DeMint. Please do your best to hold Obama's feet to the fire on his campaigh pledge to eliminate earmarks.
Bill| 4.6.09 @ 11:20AM
Bram and Big J. I agree with both of you. I think we need to take to the streets and picket the homes of our representatives who vote for all this foolishness. Hold performance reviews in their districts and point out their bad decisions as well as good ones.. if there are any good ones... Time to hold them accountable and bring some enlightenment to the voters.
Eighteen states allow for recalls. Time to file the petitions.
Son Of Sam | 4.6.09 @ 1:19PM
Bill, I am in absolute agreement with you... I also think that you should video and audio tape their response when you, as a citizen, ask them a direct question about their voting habits vs their rhetoric on the campaing trail. That's not only raw material for campaign commericials, its also great stuff for any aspiring bloggers or web broadcasters. I, for one, will be willing to run anything good that you can get on any of these bozos and criminals disguised as law makers
stay strong until freedom dawns
Son of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos
Anthony| 4.6.09 @ 2:28PM
Senator, On a day when the Community-Organizer-in- Chief's response to the North Korean missle launch is to say that we must rid the world of nuclear weapons and America must take the lead, somehow, earmarks don't seem all that threating. However, should we survive as a nation, we must certainly address the earmark issue. Might I suggest Term Limits as a way of eliminating bribery from the careerists in Washington?
Pingback| 4.6.09 @ 2:36PM
Earmarks Threaten Individual Liberty | National Federation of Republican Assemblies ( links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Annalara| 4.6.09 @ 5:39PM
Before we crown DeMint, has anyone bothered to see if he has practiced what he now preaches, ie, no earmarking?
Not a lot to ask, really. (Not that I'm a skeptic or anything! *g*)
ben| 4.6.09 @ 6:28PM
i don't have a problem with earmarks persay just the method of attatching them. I liked McCain's idea of having the full congressional body vote for or against a bill, then vote for or against each and every earmark in the bill. This way the bill will pass on it's merits and not the earmarks added to it. These earmarks are front and center and not hidden in the shadows and therefor cannot be inserted as a strong-arm tactic to buy votes. This way good bills aren't voted against because of too many earmarks and bad bills aren't voted for simply because of the earmarks. Instead the bills and the earmarks are voted for seperately and individually, which enables our elected officials to choose the good over the bad instead of having to take it all together. Too many bad bills pass and good bills falter because of attatched earmarks. If each of these things, the earmarks and the legislation they adorn were voted on individually we'll see more and more pork eliminated. How many congressmen are going to stay to vote on the 9,000 earmarks in O's budget - if they knew they would have to they probably wouldn't include so many to begin with.
Edward| 4.6.09 @ 7:08PM
I don't think people understand what an earmark is. It is not extra spending added to a bill. It simply appropriates the spending that already passed. Earmarking in theory is a great idea. It takes the money out of the hands of beauracrats in Washington and placing it in the hands of the representatives. I hate the majority of government spending, but we all know Congresspeople love to spend our money.
Alan Brooks| 4.6.09 @ 8:36PM
As the commenter got it right on-target, elections ARE term limits; and if say 40 percent of the electorate knows only what it gets from TV, well then game over.
We'll just have to accept a grossly-materialistic brave new world where the purpose of education is to make us not think..
accept 'it' but not like it.
DaveinPhoenix| 4.7.09 @ 12:28AM
Earmarks are obviously a less effective way of creating jobs/wealth. But they represent just a fraction of the $43 trillion in future expenditures over and above projected future revenues of the United States Government (taxpayers).
So we can scream and kick all we want over deficits and earmarks, but we all face a $43 trillion economic disaster if we don't address Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid rather soon.
And not one newspaper, website, publication, TV, or radio station will even acknowledge this huge number, much less report on it. A Treasury Department publication for all to see:
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2008/08frusg.pdf
Pingback| 4.7.09 @ 8:17AM
Political Greed | Albany's Insanity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Michele San Pietro| 4.7.09 @ 4:08PM
Yes, freedom is a very fragile thing. And Obama is simply depriving Americans of the most basic liberties. Let's stop him before it is too late!
Alan Brooks| 4.8.09 @ 12:06AM
term limits aren't the answer
polygraph tests ARE
;)
ruth| 4.8.09 @ 12:18AM
Alan--LOL!
Liberty Lady| 4.8.09 @ 12:17PM
I live in South Carolina and you wouldn't believe the people here who don't believe in the Fair Tax--why, you ask? 1) misinformation--some of the most intelligent people I know are convinced it "won't work"; 2) or "it would take money away from the needy, which is not fair" or "how are we going to pay for our social programs?"; and, 3)just plain scared of change--"but it's always been this way!" When something is broken, you fix it! There is a determined group of Fair Tax supporters in SC doing their best to educate as many people as possible about it--so, let's all get on the bandwagon and spread the word! Eventually, change (tax reform, that is) may come about! Don't give up!
Pingback| 4.10.09 @ 11:00AM
Obama Sells U.S. Short, But for What? | National Federation of Republican Assemblies links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.15.09 @ 8:03AM
Political Pigs links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Truth hurts| 4.26.09 @ 2:50AM
"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group. "
God, that bitch.
Nancy Meinhardt| 5.3.09 @ 3:12PM
Hi everyone,
I have researched to find the best way to correct the path that this country is headed for, in my research I found a site solely dedicated to the Constitution (National Center for Constitutional Studies) which has existed for many years. It was here that I finally found the solution.
The article is long but very important that you read it. I am going to paste the most important point and give you the site address. www.nccs.net
How We Abandoned Federalism in 1913
Many Americans today are unaware that the Constitution provided another "internal control" on the government that was more powerful than all the others combined: the original design of the U.S. Senate.
For more than a century, senators were elected by state legislators rather than by popular vote.5 The founders said they had organized Congress in such a way that "the people will be represented in one house, the state legislatures in the other."6 Thus the states were an integral part of the federal government and had a strong voice in the formation of federal policy. As James Madison put it, "No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the states."7
According to George Mason of Virginia, the object of this design was to arm the state legislatures with "some means of defending themselves against encroachments of the national government..And what better means can we provide than [to give] them some share in, or rather to make them a constituent part of, the national establishment?"8
Madison explained that the House of Representatives was always regarded as a "national" institution because its members were elected directly by the people, but "the Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the states.[and in this respect] the government is federal, not national."9 In other words, the government in Washington is a "federal" government only if it incorporates the states into its very structure.
The founders even cautioned us about the dangers of altering this arrangement. For example, Fisher Ames of Massachusetts declared in 1788: "The state governments are essential parts of the system..The senators represent the sovereignty of the states;.they are in the quality of ambassadors of the states..[But suppose] that they [were] to be chosen by the people at large..Whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government?"10
But in 1913 we rejected this counsel and adopted the 17th Amendment. Since that time, senators have been elected by popular vote-and the states have had no official representation in Washington. The results have been so disastrous that, from the sobering perspective of our day, Jefferson's warning of 1821 seems almost prophetic: "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."11
Let's Give the U.S. Senate Back to the States!
As we noted earlier, the only way to restore American federalism is to reinstate the principles on which it was built. If we want a genuine federal government again, with the balance and controls originally provided by our Constitution, we must repeal the 17th Amendment.
The United States is a republic, not a democracy; we don't need a second House of Representatives. Since all national legislation must be passed by both houses of Congress, why not give the Senate back to the states? As full participants in the legislative process, they could effectively block any laws, taxes, or appropriations which they considered to be unconstitutional or otherwise harmful to the states or the people.
Repealing the 17th Amendment is the safest, most effective, and most permanent solution to the current predicament in our federal system. Consider the strategies that the states are now using:
few states have filed lawsuits against the national government for specific violations of the Constitution. The problem with this approach is that the outcome is in the hands of the federal courts. And as James Madison observed, the legislative and executive branches of government are not the only potential threats to our liberty: "The judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution."12
In an attempt to "reassert their rights" under the 10th Amendment, several state legislatures have passed resolutions declaring state sovereignty and demanding that Washington stop usurping their authority. Such resolutions are philosophically correct, but they provide no enforcement mechanism to restrain the central government. Some have suggested that the states could add "teeth" to their declarations by impounding federal taxes or by voluntarily returning federal funds issued for unconstitutional programs. However, these suggestions seem to overlook a harsh reality: the states have become so dependent on federal dollars that they are now subservient to Washington-and until that relationship changes, they are not likely to take decisive action.
More than half of the states have adopted or are now considering resolutions to participate in a proposed "Conference of the States" later this year. But while the 10th Amendment movement doesn't go far enough, some fear that this proposal runs the risk of going too far. Conference organizers, who believe that "fundamental, long-term, structural change" is needed to revive federalism, have discussed several constitutional amendments that could be recommended to Congress and the states.13 NCCS shares the concerns expressed by others regarding some of these amendments, but we're in agreement on the need for structural change-because that's the only way to reverse the radical power shift that undermined our federal system in 1913. And as we contemplate what kind of change would be in the best interests of our nation, we come to this question: Who's going to devise a better solution than the inspired model established by our founding fathers?
The 17th Amendment was a grievous mistake. Isn't it time to make the states part of our federal government again? By resuming their rightful place in the Senate, the states can become partners in developing national policy-rather than underlings who must humbly petition Washington for favors, or adversaries whose only means of self-defense is a constitutional crisis.
In today's political climate, repealing the 17th Amendment may appear to be an impossible feat. But if our citizens and leaders are educated in the American "freedom formula," it can be done. In fact, there's never been a more opportune time for such a campaign. In 1913, public confidence in the state legislatures was at its lowest ebb; but now the states are widely regarded, even by many in Washington, as far more competent and trustworthy than our national government. The opponents of federalism will try to sow confusion and alarm about the "loss of democratic institutions," but those who understand the founders' teachings will not be deceived.
One final thought: as we work to restore our Constitution, let's remember to avoid negativism. We can always achieve more by shining a light than by cursing the darkness. The best way to make a constructive difference is not to criticize and alienate those with whom we differ, but rather to share our views and exercise our influence in a positive, respectful manner. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."14
SoonToBeLateGreatUSA| 11.12.09 @ 8:47PM
While Senator DeMint is 100% correct about earmarks, to say it is political greed, not corporate greed that is the biggest threat to this "democracy" is short sighted.
They are equally disastrous not only to this nation, but others as well, especially third world developing nations that we exploit under the guise of social and economic aid.
Graft has always, and will always be a problem. It's human nature. There was a time when passing legislation exclusively for the profitability of special interests was the exception rather then the rule it has now become.
Until sharing in excessive profits by the few at the expense of the many is replaced by actions and laws dictated by conscience at every level of society, we are doomed as a nation. Like every pyramid scheme, our present system simply will not work and must collapse, leaving only the wealthy with the ability to find comfortable refuge elsewhere on the planet.
How do we avoid this inevitability?
Informed voters who actually vote, not based on campaign propaganda, but the actual records of members of Congress.
The complete and total elimination of all lobbyists representing for profit interests.
Elimination of the Electoral College.
Elimination of special laws and privileges that grant immunity to members of Congress.
The ability to defeat legislation signed into law by majority vote of registered voters if it defies majority acceptance with those voters.
Any other ideas that would take away empowering special interest groups.
Nelson Lee Walker | 5.5.09 @ 5:40PM
Our lousy Congress gets reelected 95% of the time because voters are stupid!
There is only one infallible, unstoppable way to get Term Limits:
NEVER REELECT INCUMBENTS!
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=nels96&view=videos
http:tenurecorrupts.com
bob| 11.9.11 @ 12:21PM
i like turtles
bob| 11.9.11 @ 12:27PM
sometimes when im alone i like to cover myself in vaseline and pretend im a slug
greg| 11.9.11 @ 12:28PM
i pretend im a snail
bobby| 11.9.11 @ 12:28PM
shut up you vag
Keegan Anderson | 11.10.11 @ 12:33PM
Hey everyone add me on facebook!!!
Ryan Singer| 11.10.11 @ 12:39PM
i love boys