-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who was rated by National Journal as the most conservative senator in 2009, is pushing back against the House Republicans’ earmarks moratorium and a similar effort in the Senate. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed (available only to subscribers), Inhofe maintained the 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.
Instead Inhofe has Honest Expenditure Limitation (HELP) Act. “Instead of locking in the president’s 20% spending increase, my plan reduces nonsecurity discretionary spending over a five-year period,” he writes. “Once it reaches the 2008 spending level, my bill then freezes spending there for an additional five years.” But Inhofe is adamant that the anti-earmarks crusade is going to throw out Congress’ legitimate constitutional perogatives out with the wasteful spending.
“Under Article I, Section 9 it is our [Congress’] responsibility to do the authorizing and the appropriating,” Inhofe told TAS in a telephone interview. “If we eliminate that, the Democrats are the big beneficiary. That money will be shifted to their Democratic president.” Inhofe argues that the issue won’t affect spending levels but rather who disburses the spending — Congress, as the Founding Fathers intended, or the president and his bureaucrats.
Inhofe acknowledges that his position is unpopular among rank-and-file conservatives, but alludes to his role as a leading global warming skeptic in saying that he’s willing to take on causes that are initially unpopular. He believes that Republicans should avoid this “distraction.” “On the four biggest issues where the American people are on our side — the deficit, government takeover of health care, cap and trade, and Gitmo — Republicans are clearly on the right side,” he says. “Why then do we want to waste our time with a phony issue like this?”
I’ll have more to say about this later.
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/12/sen-jim-inhofe-earmarks-debate
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Her Unrequited Letter
- Self-Righteous Republic
- The (Real) Great Divide
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
dad29| 3.12.10 @ 4:56PM
Sen. Inhofe is right, as far as he goes.
But THE reason for earmark reform is this: nobody, absolutely NOBODY, trusts DC pols to do the right thing anymore. And that won't change for a LOT of years.
ALL the spending has to be reduced, significantly, now. Privileges of office? Fuggedaboutit.
Surly, nervous, jobless, and worse out here in the Real World, Senator.
Derek Leaberry| 3.12.10 @ 5:23PM
Earmarks are a phony issue in that the big money is in Entitlements and a gigantic military that doesn't reflect the fact that the USSR went out of business in 1991. Ending earmarks would make as big a dent in the budget as a ten-year old boy would do running against the defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Bob| 3.13.10 @ 9:51AM
We normally don't agree, but you are so right on this one. But the reason Republicans won't do Medicare reform is that then they will be accused of killing Grandma (and they can't do that as they've used that line against the Dems). Even now, they're using the bogus issue of reducing Medicare by $500 billion and trying to scare old people. They should be FOR reducing Medicare, not against it....
Nick| 3.13.10 @ 4:14PM
Pay no attention to 3/5 Bob's comments above.
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| 3.13.10 @ 6:30PM
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| 3.13.10 @ 7:49PM
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?
Michael| 11.13.10 @ 4:00PM
"But the reason Republicans won't do Medicare reform is that then they will be accused of killing Grandma (and they can't do that as they've used that line against the Dems)."
Gotta hate it when hyperbolic rhetoric comes to bite you back in the ass, right Bob? Darn.
Quartermaster| 3.12.10 @ 6:01PM
Congress has no "Constitutional prerogatives" when it comes to spending money via earmarks, anymore than it has such when it comes to charity in the guise of social welfare. Such a statement says all we need to know about the so called conservatives in Congress.
astonerii | 3.12.10 @ 7:54PM
Earmarks are the grease that allows the big bad 98.5% to be voted into law.
'I do not think I can vote for this bill, it is against every fiber of my being.'
'Well, we are going to let you spend $2,500,000 in your district on anything you want'
'When i was talking about that bill earlier, what I meant to say is that it is completely worthy of my vote' while thinking, 'It sure will be nice to have my name on those three schools, that highway, and money funding my wife's company.'
Horace| 3.12.10 @ 9:35PM
As an aside, I wonder if it is still practical for our party leaders to get their message out through the WSJ if their words will end up published behind a pay wall.
Michael| 11.13.10 @ 4:02PM
Wait, I thought conservatives loved the free-market? You should enjoy having to pay for news. You can thank Rupert Murdouche.
BreakthePaywall | 3.14.10 @ 5:44AM
BreakthePaywall! is a free add-on for Internet Explorer (Firefox coming soon!) that simplifies using the various methods for circumventing website paywall restrictions.
Oldefarte| 3.14.10 @ 5:03PM
Inhofe is entirely correct. If a husband reduces his spending, a wife can increase her spending by the amount her husband reduced amount; and their combined spending amount remains the same. The only solution is a reduction of governmental spending by vote of a majority of congressmen; and the way to accompolish same is for voters to begin electing conservative, pledged budget-reducing candidates in November!!!!!!
Larry| 3.14.10 @ 6:35PM
Imhofe has a limited (very limited) point. But 1.5% of $3.721 trillion dollars (FY 2010 Federal budget total) is still a LOT of money: around $55.8 billion!! And earmarks are the low-hanging fruit. It is going to be much more difficult politically to tackle non-discretionary, entitlement spending. Let's at least start with earmarks, and then we can go on to support the Pence balanced budget amendment. The idea that Obama's minions are going to spend the money is a weak excuse for lacking the necessary political will to begin somewhere.
Michael| 11.13.10 @ 4:03PM
Well said Larry. Apparently 55.8 billion dollars is nothing and is worth spending for pork.
Larry| 3.14.10 @ 6:38PM
Oops. I screwed up. It was 1.5% of DISCRETIONARY spending. So my number is way too big. But it still is a lot of money. Acting on earmarks is not a substitute for long-term action, but we need to start somewhere.
350-030 | 4.8.10 @ 5:40AM
good read thanks for the share
640-553 | 4.19.10 @ 6:23AM
High quality Cisco, HP, IBM, Oracle and other Certification exmas training materials are provided here at Pass4sure. Pass4sure helps you on your way to your certifications
Michael| 11.13.10 @ 3:59PM
Another conservative hypocrite. How surprising that teabaggers actually thought they'd be seeing reform. So sad! If something as small as earmarks (which is 1 to 1.5% of the budget) can't be thrown away, you really think they'll reform the major stuff? Ha!!! Nice to see the GOP has not changed. DeMint is actually principled and sticks with his principles.
nfl| 11.30.10 @ 3:24AM
20101130 yjr Welcome to NFL Jersey Zone 2011NFL.com. NFL is one of the most popular games in American even in the world. There are many other NFL Jerseys teams. Since Sonny Werblin managed one of the NFL team New York Jets, this team combines with modernization. Other teams are also popular, Such as Oakland raiders, Detroit lions, leveland browns, and San Diego chargers and so on. Of course more fans like to wear sports clothes to show their enthusiasm. To meet lots of fans’ demands, our website offers various of NFL Jerseys. All of them are real materials, which durable, Ventilation, quick-drying fabric slightly heavier. We are sincere to hope that our products can meet your satisfaction. Once you put on it, the enthusiasm to NFL can be stimulated.
Our mission is to make the best quality NFL Jerseys to our kind customers all over the world. And we promise we will try our best to server for our valued customers. We hope get your supports to our website 2011NFL.com. Once you have any problem, you can contact our customer service. We will always be he20101130 yjr Welcome to NFL Jersey Zone 2011NFL.com. NFL is one of the most popular games in American even in the world. There are many other NFL Jerseys teams. Since Sonny Werblin managed one of the NFL team New York Jets, this team combines with modernization. Other teams are also popular, Such as Oakland raiders, Detroit lions, leveland browns, and San Diego chargers and so on. Of course more fans like to wear sports clothes to show their enthusiasm. To meet lots of fans’ demands, our website offers various of NFL Jerseys. All of them are real materials, which durable, Ventilation, quick-drying fabric slightly heavier. We are sincere to hope that our products can meet your satisfaction. Once you put on it, the enthusiasm to NFL can be stimulated.