Political Hay
The Spending Split
Two leading conservative senators disagree over whether a ban on earmarks will help rein in the federal budget.
Republicans are engaged in a tough fight over government spending. But this time, the battle isn’t just between fiscal conservatives and the GOP’s own big spenders. The battle over earmarks has split the two of the Senate’s most conservative members.
Last week, House Republicans agreed to a one-year unilateral moratorium on earmarks: they’ll insert no special requests for local projects in this year’s spending bills. Democrats had banned earmarks for specific corporations the day before. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) wants Senate Republicans to follow in the House’s footsteps.
“This is exactly the kind of bold leadership Americans have been demanding, and I applaud House Republicans for putting their country ahead of earmarks,” DeMint said in a statement. “House Democrats talked a good game this week, but only House Republicans took real action. Finally, Republicans are getting serious about earning back the trust of American taxpayers.”
But Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — ranked by National Journal as the most conservative senator in 2009 — disagrees. In an interview with TAS, he argued that the anti-earmarks crusade will end up ceding Congress’s constitutional authority over appropriations to a liberal executive branch rather than reducing any federal spending. “A lot of the big spending Republicans are distracting people from the real spending,” Inhofe says.
Earmarks even divide families. Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate, is a supporter of earmarks and has requested a number of them for his district. “I love Ron Paul!” former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay once told your humble servant in an interview. “Who do you think helped him get all his earmarks?”
Rand Paul, the congressman’s son and an insurgent Republican candidate for Senate in Kentucky, has taken a no-pork pledge and supports DeMint’s proposed earmark ban. “The Tea Party movement is an effort to get government under control,” the younger Paul said in a statement. “I’m running to represent Kentuckians and to dismantle the culture of professional politicians in Washington. Leadership isn’t photo-ops with oversized fake cardboard checks. That kind of thinking is bankrupting our nation. Senator DeMint understands that and has taken action to stop it.”
Where most rank-and-file conservatives stand is clear, however: earmarks are seen as a fancy congressional code word for pork-barrel projects and wasteful government spending. That’s why pressure for a ban has built despite the Republican appropriators’ reluctance. Inhofe argues that conservatives need to understand that earmarks affect the disbursement of federal funds rather than the level of spending. “Eliminating an earmark — I wish we’d call it an appropriation — doesn’t cut any spending,” he says. “You don’t save any money. It just results in a bureaucrat — or worse, the EPA — making the determination of how that money will be spent.”
Inhofe acknowledges that many earmarks are frivolous. “I argue on the floor all the time against appropriations that are stupid,” he says. “The remedy is to vote them down.” But if bureaucrats in the Obama administration get to determine where the funds go instead, the money won’t be any better spent. “I don’t even care if the president is a Republican,” Inhofe says. “The Bush administration did a terrible job in 2007 when we only passed two appropriations bills and a lot of the decisions were made by the executive.”
Nevertheless, Inhofe believes the Democrats will profit from a Republican earmark moratorium. “The Democrats will be the big beneficiary,” he says. “That money will be shifted their Democratic president.” That’s what led him to take his pushback against the anti-earmark campaign to the Wall Street Journal op-ed page:
An earmark moratorium won’t save any money. Why? Because instead of reducing the federal budget, it will empower Obama administration bureaucrats to spend the funds members of Congress would have sent home through earmarks. Also, last year’s earmarks accounted for 1.5% of discretionary spending. Where’s the focus on the other 98.5%? Earmarks are nothing more than a distraction from the real spending and debt crisis facing our nation.
DeMint disagrees. “Earmarks waste billions of taxpayer dollars every year and lead to corruption through campaign kickbacks and secret deals,” he said in his recent statement. “Worst of all, earmarks are used to bribe lawmakers to vote for bills that explode the debt and balloon the size of government. Earmarks were used to grease the skids for the bailouts, stimulus and health care takeover.”
“Without defining an earmark, we say earmarks are bad,” counters Inhofe, who says the role of earmarks in swelling the truly significant spending programs is overblown. “[The House Republicans] defined it as appropriations and authorizations.” He continues: “If you have defined an earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized, where the appropriators just swapped out deals on the floor and gave things to their friends, that goes on. I would say kill that.”
DeMint promises to continue his quest for an earmark moratorium in the Senate. Inhofe says his contrarian position will be vindicated, just like his early global warming skepticism. Either way, Republicans have gotten themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place on spending. It will be difficult for them to regain their reputation for fiscal discipline while attacking mainly small but silly spending items. Yet it will be equally hard to be credible on reining in entitlements if Republicans continue to request a large share of the special projects for their own districts.
It’s a dilemma that can be solved only by genuine conservative leadership — and a generous amount of overspending by the other party.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (98) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/15/the-spending-split
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Obama’s Drone War
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Current Wisdom
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
Stuart Koehl| 3.15.10 @ 7:19AM
Earmarks are a symptom, not a cause. The budget deficit is not driven by earmarks, nor would eliminating earmarks much affect the growth of the deficit, because "discretionary spending" (things for which Congress has to authorize and appropriate funds every year) constitute a rapidly shrinking portion of the federal budget.
The real culprit is the rapid rise of mandatory spending--that is, entitlement programs which, once established, are automatically funded year over year according to a formula that includes cost of living and other adjustments.
Together with debt service, mandatory spending now accounts for close to two-thirds of the federal budget. Of the remainder, defense accounts for about 20%, and all other programs for 13%. At the rate mandatory spending is growing, it will soon consume the entire federal budget unless unsustainable deficits are maintained in perpetuity, which will drive debt service, until the whole house of cards collapses.
To fix the budget deficit, reform entitlement programs--or better still, kill them altogether.
That's not to say that earmark elimination isn't a good thing on its face. Eliminating earmarks would eliminate a potential source of corruption, and would demonstrate to the public that the national fisc is not a feeding trough for special interests. But, be honest, it is largely a symbolic gesture.
Mike| 3.15.10 @ 11:47AM
Stuart,
I agree with what you have written, except for killing instead of fixing the entitlement programs.
As for the earmarks, while eliminating them would be a largely symbolic gesture, if Congress cannot manage to do the little things to control deficits and the debt, they will never muster the courage to do the big, necessary things to address them.
I wonder if Inhofe would be making the same argument if a member of his own party were President.
Eric| 3.15.10 @ 1:22PM
When a member of his party was president, Ron Paul made the same argument as Inhofe against eliminating earmarks, and expecting that to correct wasteful spending. He also pointed out the same issue of ceding control of spending to the Executive branch, if earmarks are eliminated.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.15.10 @ 5:31PM
Mr. Antle,
Isn't it cool when two fine men honestly disagree? Both of the men have made excellent cases, and I am content to let it play out.
Symbols are important as are deep cuts.
Let's kick the communists, (pardon the shorthand), out, out, out, then figure it out.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.15.10 @ 7:28AM
The biggest and most wasteful earmark of all time was the Stimulus Act. So far, billions have been squandered with few results.
It would appear prudent to quit wasting time of drops in bucket vis a vis earmarks, and focus on significant savings by canning what's left of the Stimulus.
The legislature inside the beltway suffers from a distancing from reality. The economy has turned south and they're arguing over rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.
Now is not the time for small ideas but large concepts. Any political party that wants to survive better learn to touch the third and fourth rails of politics and come up with significant proposals to reduce entitlements.
Curly Smith| 3.15.10 @ 8:42AM
You know that the Republican Party is useless when a one-year moratorium on earmarks is "bold leadership". Why a one-year ban... let's see the election is in 6 months, it will take 6 months to propose new Republican sponsored legislation. So in one year plus a day we'll have legislation full of Republican earmarks. How convenient.
A permanent ban would signal that the Republicans have undertaken a pledge of fiscal restraint. A one-year ban just says they want to be the ones who rob the treasury.
John| 3.15.10 @ 9:03AM
A point of contention the author either ignorantly, or purposefully left out in order to manipulate public opinion, but unused money for earmarks gets returned to the general budget. This is why Rep. Paul submits earmarks, but does not vote for appropriations.
But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
"Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds." Ron Paul
See that? It's the other side of the story, it's called research.
Bob| 3.15.10 @ 9:24AM
Actually, John, your understanding is totally wrong. The Congress appropriates the money. The budget only sets limits. Yes, Congress will spend every cent that is authorized. But the big problem that Ron Paul (who I like), fails to say is that earmarks are used primarily for local spending that wouldn't be approved if voted on separately. Local spending should not be done from Congress, it should be done by the states. Earmarks are simply a way to keep us from having limited government. They are a gravy train for legislators to get reelected and use other states money for their local projects.
chuck| 3.15.10 @ 10:09AM
The big point is getting lost here. What Constitutional authority does the Federal Government have to fund all these local projects to begin with?
Enforce the 10th amendment, cut the Federal Government down to its Constitutional duties, deny them the massive amount of wealth they are sucking up, and return the power to the states and the people, and allow them to decide what gets funded on a local level.
subzero| 3.15.10 @ 3:58PM
Voted votes against bills that contain earmarks.
subzero| 3.15.10 @ 3:58PM
Voted votes against bills that contain earmarks.
Bob| 3.15.10 @ 9:13AM
Stuart and Curly are precisely right and are saying the same thing I've said on numerous occasions. The problem with cutting entitlements is that you are going to be accused of "killing Grandma" as you propose reductions in Medicare. The Washington Republicans can't do this, however, since they are against the Democrats reduction in Medicare and are against end-of-life counseling where most of Medicare funds are spent. In addition, most of the tea party people are senior citizens who, unknowingly, are supported by government run universal health care that they don't want to lose. So, Stuart, the devil is in the details and that's why Republicans won't support any reductions in Medicare -- the largest Republican voting block, you know, are seniors.
We need to cut Medicare and Social Security. If we fail to do that, both Democrats and Republicans, we will be forced to raise taxes. Using earmarks to reduce spending is like urinating in the ocean to raise the tide....
And yes, Curly, a one-year ban on earmarks is just a political stunt by Republicans rather than a principled stand. The big problem with earmarks is that they are buried and are thus pork. If the project wanted is really worthwhile, you know, the Congress could vote on it in an appropriations bill. But that would mean we'd know who supported it... Hmmmm.....
Nick| 3.15.10 @ 9:33AM
Pay no attention to 3/5 Bob's comments, folks.
For those who don't know, he is known as 3/5 Bob, because until last June, he thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote, under the original U.S. Constitution.
He also doesn't know the scientific fact of when human biological life begins because he is unsure of when "ensoulment" happens.
He also claimed he translated the Bible from the original Aramaic when he was a teenager.
He is a pseudo-intellectual and an anti-Christian bigot.
Don't waste your time arguing with him.
Bob| 3.15.10 @ 10:15AM
1/5 Nick....
Doesn't know the Constitution....
Doesn't understand science....
Doesn't know anything about Biblical Aramaic....
Doesn't know enough to make any relevant comments.....
Talk about wasting time?????
Hmmm....
Nick| 3.15.10 @ 10:21AM
3/5 Bob,
Thinks the Constitution gave blacks 3/5 of a vote....
Thinks "ensoulment" is a scientific term....
Thinks there are Bibles in Aramaic around to be translated....
Doesn't know much of anything, except how to manipulate economic data....
Doesn't persuade anyone on this website....
Why would anybody read his tripe?
Troll Watch| 3.15.10 @ 11:49AM
" ...I studied religion when I was young and translated the original five books of Moses from the original Aramaic when I was 10." Bob
Bob wrote it. The original language of the five books of Mosses is Hebrew. He is a made up being called a troll. He might say anything. He deserves no credibility. He is a liar not somebody who just made a mistake.
chuck| 3.15.10 @ 12:39PM
Maybe he'll make his next post in Aramaic. It might actually make more sense than most of the crap he spews.
Bob| 3.15.10 @ 12:47PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic
Troll Watch| 3.15.10 @ 1:03PM
Thanks for making the point. What an idiot. You can't escape from your past stupidity, you can just make more.
Bob| 3.15.10 @ 12:48PM
Thinks the Constitution doesn't say anything about counting slaves at 3/5th of a regular person....
Doesn't understand the biological growth of an embryo...
Didn't even know that parts of the Bible were written in Aramaic...
Doesn't know anything about economics...
Doesn't add anything to this website...
Did he even graduate from elementary school???
Troll Watch| 3.15.10 @ 1:18PM
We know Bob understands the 3/5 clause now but the alleged high school grad didn't in the past. He repeated the liberal stupidity verbatim. It is funny only because Bob claims to be all knowing and all seeing.
Bob claimed that the five books of Moses were written originally in Aramaic. This is not true and his referenced web site shows this. I believe has learned all he knows from Wiki. Maybe Bob is now claiming he translated the Book of Daniel when he was ten. I am not buying.
We deserve smarter trolls at this web site.
chuck| 3.15.10 @ 4:10PM
We need to contact George Soros and put in an order for a smarter troll, if he has one. Anyone know his phone number?
Nick| 3.15.10 @ 7:40PM
Oh, was that meant for me, 3/5 Bob?
"Thinks the Constitution [...]" - LIE
"Doesn't understand [...]" - LIE
"Didn't even know [...]" - LIE
"Doesn't know anything about economics..." LIE, I know a little. Enough to know it can't predict anything and can be manipulated by even the moronic.
Where do you come up with this garbage? I know you're envious of all the compliments I get on this site. You should repent of your covetousness.
I grew up in the suburbs, in the 70's. Not in Compton, or East L.A., or whatever. My elementary school didn't have graduations.
They didn't feel the need to prop us up with phony self-esteem with a ceremony for something we were expected to accomplish as a part of growing up.
Somebody definitely over-inflated your ego.
Rafer Janders| 3.15.10 @ 9:57AM
John, thank you for pointing out this left handed attack on Dr. Paul's Crediblilty, and I love how You through in Tom Delay's name with Dr Paul's,
A typical attack on the "Serpico" of Government, Dr. Paul has you Neo Cons worried! I see attacks from all direction, Laughable and Sad!
Lets Talk about Mcain and his record, Thats the guy you voted for right! Ha! great choice!
Ron Paul 2012
Shamus| 3.15.10 @ 10:42AM
The debt ceiling is the key.
If it is possible to stop increases to the debt ceiling then government spending could be brought under control. Each time the debt ceiling increases there is more money available for spending. A hard limit on the debt ceiling can limit government largess.
Sara| 3.15.10 @ 11:23AM
Okay. Do I understand correctly: The money from earmarks would go into a fund to be spent by the Executive Branch if it is not used for earmarks? So, does this mean there is a dedicated fund in the federal budget set aside for earmarks, which will be spent one way or the other?
Is it not possible to omit that fund from the budget? Even if it is only one percent of the total, it's still an tremendous amount of money.
In our state we have an enormous building, the result of an earmark (I'm not sure of its purported purpose) sitting in the middle of nowhere, weeds growing up around it, with the name of a certain former Democrat, one of our former U.S. Representatives, in large letters on the side, so that the name can be seen for miles from the Interstate. Certainly, it cost many millions to build. Why? To get him re-elected. Until he died, it worked too.
I like Sen. Inhofe. I agree with him completely on the issue of climate change. (Whatever happened to the scientific method?) But, even if earmarks constitute a minor amount of Federal spending, they are so often wasteful in the big scheme of needs. And they are a symbol of the whole lot of waste in government.
Get rid of the earmarks fund in the budget. Then bring billion dollar projects before Congress in appropriations bills one at a time.
Bob| 3.15.10 @ 12:53PM
The executive branch does not have the authority to spend the "earmark" funds. Inhofe's invalid point was that once the "budget" is set, everything must come from it. So if the money is not spent on earmarks, it must be spent on something else. But Congress must still appropriate these funds. Where Inhofe is wrong is that by adding these earmarks to bills, they are never voted on -- they are just spent. As I've said before, these are local projects and the money should be spent locally, not in Washington. Government needs to be smaller, not larger. Inhofe is arguing for MORE power in Washington, not less.
W. James Antle III | 3.15.10 @ 1:32PM
Bob's statements are mostly inaccurate. Throughout much of the appropriations process, Congress provides lump sums of money to be spent by federal agencies according to their legal authority and internal budgetary processes. An earmark is when Congress specifically directs how the money will be spent.
In most cases, if an earmark is eliminated it simply means that the funds will be disbursed in another manner, not that the money isn't spent. Take the Bridge to Nowhere, for example. Those earmarks were basically congressional instructions to spend highway funds on a specific (in this case, dubious) program. But eliminating the earmarks didn't reduce federal highway spending and it didn't even reduce Alaska's allotment.
I wouldn't say there is absolutely no case where eliminating an earmark couldn't potentially save money. Without the earmark directing otherwise, the relevant federal agency might subject the spending to a competitive process. There are also obviously instances where the earmark adds to the cost of the bill or it is used to buy votes for big-government bills.
But overall no, the earmarking process does not affect the size or power of the federal government in exactly the way Bob describes.
Bob| 3.15.10 @ 3:21PM
Antle, you should actually READ what I wrote. Earmarks will NOT reduce the budgets of federal agencies. Here's the official definition by the Congressional Research Service:
"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."
There is absolutely no requirement that earmarks reduce federal agency spending or that it comes from their budgets.
If you could manage to think beyond that box you are residing in, you'd see that if the POLICY of having earmarks (mostly local, not national projects) were a state issue rather than a federal issue, the federal government COULD spend less. My point remains that as long as a federal government spends for local issues, we are not limiting that government, we are expanding it.
W. James Antle III | 3.15.10 @ 4:02PM
Bob, you wrote:
"The executive branch does not have the authority to spend the 'earmark' funds. "
In most cases, this is simply untrue. If the money is not earmarked for some specific purpose, the relevant federal agency will usually direct its disbursement.
"Inhofe's invalid point was that once the 'budget' is set, everything must come from it. So if the money is not spent on earmarks, it must be spent on something else."
No, that isn't his point.
"But Congress must still appropriate these funds."
Yes, but that isn't the same as directing their disbursement to a specific project. When Congress uses the appropriations process to do this, it is called an earmark. But the money is still appropriated in the absence of earmarks. Earmarks are an issue of directing the spending, not extra spending.
"If you could manage to think beyond that box you are residing in, you'd see that if the POLICY of having earmarks (mostly local, not national projects) were a state issue rather than a federal issue, the federal government COULD spend less."
That is indeed the problem with many individual earmarks, but the policy of spending federal dollars for local projects is not a result of earmarks itself. In the absence of earmarks, the federal government will still spend money on projects that are properly local in nature. The difference will be who is directing the spending.
Again, eliminating the Bridges to Nowhere did not reduce federal highway spending or even change Alaska's allotment.
"Earmarks will NOT reduce the budgets of federal agencies."
Nobody said that they would. Again, they direct the disbursement of the spending. But eliminating the earmarks will not, in most cases, reduce spending directly.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.15.10 @ 5:40PM
Mr. Antle,
Isn't it cool when two fine men honestly disagree? Both of the men have made excellent cases, and I am content to let it play out.
Symbols are important as are deep cuts.
Let's kick the communists, (pardon the shorthand), out, out, out, then figure it out.
I posted this above, having no idea that you would drop by.
Thoughts?
Dai Alanye | 3.15.10 @ 11:28AM
I sympathize with Inhofe but believe he fails to see the symbolic value of refusing earmarks. Fact is that to get the budget and deficit under control sacrifices will need to be made by every American. Seeing Congress make a sacrifice will encourage regular voters to go along with the bigger matters.
Next, let's see Congressfolks cut their own and staff salaries, then get on with tackling both general spending and entitlements.
BTW, glad to see Bob commenting again—he's such a rational fellow. (Or is it irrational? Tend to get the two mixed.)
Bob| 3.15.10 @ 1:08PM
We agree on this one, Dai... There must be something wrong with you... Is it something you ate????
Northern Rebel| 3.15.10 @ 11:33AM
Sorry, Senator Inhofe, I aint buyin' your rationalizations. Earmarks are attached to military spending, or some other bill that is important, for a reason.
The crap they attach to these bills, otherwise wouldn't see the light of day. If your so concerned about lifetime bureaucrats appropriating the cash, than bring these spending bills to the floor under the light of truth!
People will decide whether you're frivolous, or your spending ideas have merit.
Then I won't have to worry about someone re-naming West Virginia, "Byrdvania!"
howard lohmuller| 3.15.10 @ 11:39AM
Two problems with earmarks as they are handled now are that individual Congressmen and Senators are too involved in awarding and contracting them.
Earmarks should be a budget item of revenue sharing. Requests for earmarks should be submitted to the Congress and passed to a commission for selection. Contracting should be handled by an agency of the Federal Government such as the General Accounting Office or similiar agency.
Finally, earmarks should have a minimum que time, perhaps a year.
Howard Lohmuller
Oldefarte| 3.15.10 @ 1:12PM
Inhofe is entirely correct---the emphasis should be upon GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSE REDUCTION, not earmarks. In a recession, PRIVATE businesses are forced to reduce their expenses by eliminating employees, cost cutting,etc [PUBLIC GOVERNMENTS NEVER DO THIS, AND SIMPLY RAISE TAXES TO MAKE UP THEIR INCOME SHORTFALLS]; and PUBLIC GOVERNMENT should be required to do likewise [since the taxpayers get hit with the costs of not doing so]. The federal [and all governments] should immediately beging to cut 10-20% of their current expenses, in order to reduce their defecits and debt. Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland,etc are on the verge of bankruptcy; and our government is not far behind them. Earmarks are wasteful, true, but they are not the main problem. Government expenses are too high and need reductions now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Prickly Thorn| 3.15.10 @ 1:20PM
They call them "earmarks" for a reason,......because the are buried in a mountainous bill, and you have to "earmark" the corner of the page they are on to ever have a chance of finding them again,....I think it is time that WE smack down these useless POSs so hard that the side of their empty heads leaves an "earmark" in the pavement.....ARISE TERMINAL PATRIOTS,..ARISE!!!!!
Pingback| 3.15.10 @ 1:42PM
The American Spectator : The Spending Split links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.15.10 @ 1:42PM
The American Spectator : The Spending Split links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.15.10 @ 3:25PM
The American Spectator : The Spending Split links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.15.10 @ 3:25PM
The American Spectator : The Spending Split links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tod| 3.15.10 @ 3:29PM
It is better to have the federal government make decisions on spending money, than individual senators trying to get money for their states. The current earmark system rewards the powerful/long term members of congress, and those with swing votes. We don't want congress trying to get reelected based on the amount of money that they can send back to their own states. It would be better, if a federal agency were making those decisions. For example, roads. Why should the states with long term senators get the most road funds? Why not have an agency decide based on need, use of roads, etc? If an agency is misusing funds, senators can still pass laws restricting where funds can be used, or rescind decisions made by the agency.
W. James Antle III | 3.15.10 @ 4:05PM
There actually is a fairly complicated formula already in place for determining how states get their federal highway funds. Earmarks mostly affect how that allotted money gets spent, not the level of spending. That's not to say that longtime appropriators like Robert Byrd don't get more than their fair share of federal goodies. But that is not always synonymous with the process of earmarking.
Northern Rebel| 3.15.10 @ 5:33PM
Old Farte:
As you are one of the residents of reason here, you'll get no argument from me. I too, believe in starving the beast. My argument against Inhofe consists of what spending congress does, should be done in the light of day, not attached to a larger, more important bill.
dc goodman| 3.15.10 @ 5:43PM
Earmarks are an issue because services rendered by the federal government are common. If we begin to treat federal services as an intrusion rather than right, an illegal enlargement of authority instead of a gift then there won't be a need for earmarks.
Destroy the trough and the pigs will look elsewhere for food.
astonerii | 3.15.10 @ 8:41PM
A car is made up of about 1800 lbs of steel, 500 lbs of fabrics and plastics, 140 lbs of fuel, 10 lbs of oil, and a few ounces of grease. Without that few ounces of grease, the whole thing comes to a nasty grinding halt.
Government is made up of about $600b in Defense Spending, $600B in Social Security spending, $500B in medicare/medicaid spending, and $18b in pork spending. Without all that pork spending, it is likely that large parts of the whole thing would come to a screeching stop.
Anyone think the health care bill would have gotten even as far as it has without the pork? Nope, does not seem it would have. Without the cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana purchase, the senate never would have passed it. The $700B bailout would not have passed without the $150b in kickbacks either. The $787b bailout, may not have passed without it either. Right there is 1/3 of the entire GDP tied up in just the last 16 months that passed or will pass with the help of a little greasing of the gearing.
Liberal Reader| 3.15.10 @ 9:28PM
The Republicans want to end all ear-marks for one year in which they will not have a majority in Congress.
Oh, those brave, brave Republicans!
I can't stand it!
Such integrity! Such wisdom!
I wonder what would happen if they had the majority. I'm sure they'd hold themselves to such a disciplined position. No doubt. You betcha!
Now, the Democrats, evil socialists that they are, recommend a more modest policy of permanently eliminating ear-marks that funnel tax dollars to for-profit companies. Oh, those evil Democrats! Those evil Nazi Liberal Fascist Terrorist-Sympathizing Communist Democrats!!!! How could they?
mbt| 3.15.10 @ 9:37PM
Our shop that mainly engaged in mbt Brands,where sale MBT shoes.MBT shoe is a perfect shoe,which be for physiological.Here you can enjoy discount mbt shoes without tax.you can buy cheap mbt shoes which have a positive effect on our body.
Larry| 3.15.10 @ 11:56PM
I fear that with respect to transportation in general and my own experiences wading through the various bills that affect projects we in the City of Dallas had interest in, that too often the earmarks sought had a multiplier effect on the size of the general appropriations for transportation. While what James Imhofe says about earmarks is generally true, that they only direct the money appropriated to be spent in a particular way, the fact is that those earmarks are often for projects that do not meet most criteria for giving them priority in any spending decisions anywhere, whether in Congress or in the bureaucracy. As a result, rather than making decisions about how much to spend and on what, everyone punts by earmarking projects, resulting in the end in increased overall spending over time.
I know this is not as significant as entitlements, but as I said on another thread yesterday, it is a start on getting those we elect to Congress to making real decisions and actually REDUCING overall Federal spending.
MainStreet | 3.16.10 @ 12:12AM
Above , it was said that earmarks provide money for local projects that would not get enough votes if voted on alone. That is the problem, adding these items to larger more important bills allocate these funds with very little or no oversight. Eliminate these earmarks and create one or two big "earmark" bills that can be amended to eliminate the waste and then get back to the task of eliminating Big Government.
I also like the comment that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to fund these projects anyway. They are just a way to buy votes and get reelected.
Pingback| 3.16.10 @ 1:27AM
American Craft – April/May 2010 | Ebook Online Free links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.16.10 @ 4:01AM
Europe destinations | Croatia Attractions | Trogir | Europe Travel … | Croatia Travel links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.16.10 @ 8:30AM
American Idol 9 Top 16 Results Top 12 Revealed PART 3 | Simon Cowell Celebrity Monito links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
BV| 3.18.10 @ 4:33AM
A beautiful woman's shoes can not travel hurry, neatly put on good. The pair of Christian Laboutin shoes, like the masters,Pale and tired. High-heeled shoes is another woman's face, mood, temper, character and are meant to be exhaustive in the above.
Javier R.| 3.18.10 @ 12:53PM
I think its very misleading to say Ron Paul supports earmarks as if he does so enthusiastically. He merely approaches it the same way Inhofe does. Remember that Paul votes against them. The statement from that two bit politician and bureaucrat DeLay is disigenous.
Very informative piece though.
Jack Kinch(1uncle)| 3.18.10 @ 7:32PM
Using our taxes to buy votes either from congressmen or voters should be illegal punishable by 8 years in prison, minimum.
Aramaic Scholar | 3.21.10 @ 6:05PM
Anyone who claims to have translated the Torah from the original Aramaic is a liar and/or a fantasist, since the Torah was originally written in Hebrew, showing that he knows neither language.
ghdmanufactoryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 4:37AM
fggggggggg
sunglass | 4.4.10 @ 4:45AM
fgfhf
paulsmithoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 5:05AM
fdgf
burberryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 5:08AM
dghh
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.5.10 @ 9:29PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
Pingback| 4.20.10 @ 5:41PM
Romney Backs Rubio, Says Education Veto Was the Last Straw … | Educational Massachuse links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
سوريا | 6.25.11 @ 1:29AM
goood
http://www.soryh.com