-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Wall Street Journal has a lead editorial arguing that one of the big tests of whether Republicans are serious about limited government is whether they embrace a ban on earmarks. Earmarks only represent a small portion of federal spending, the editors note, but they help grease the wheels of massive spending bills and are also of great symbolic importance. While I agree with this as far as it goes — and support a ban on earmarks — I also think that the overemphasis on earmarks has distracted attention from the much more important issue of how to deal with the entitlement spending mess. Republican candidates were able to run this year on vague promises of cutting wasteful spending. When pressed on ideas to combat the looming entitlement crisis, they’d often talk about how we needed to take on earmarks and pork barrel spending first. What I fear is that if the GOP eliminates earmarks, it will cite that as progress in reducing the debt when running for reelection, once again trying to deflect attention from entitlements. As I demonstrated with a pie chart recently, if you take entitlements and defense spending off the table, you’re only left with 17 percent of the budget from which to make cuts. Putting the primary focus on earmarks would be like a struggling family cutting back on eating out and seeing movies when even after doing all of that, they can’t begin to afford their mortgage and car payments.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/15/gop-and-earmarks
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Her Unrequited Letter
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
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
Yes, however...| 11.15.10 @ 11:41AM
If Republicans in Congress can't be faithful with small things (like earmarks) then how can we believe they'll be faithful with big things (entitlements)? Maybe this will be good practice for doing the right thing with entitlements.
Eric Cartman| 11.15.10 @ 11:44AM
Well, that's all well and good. But here is the real problem:
http://www.businessinsider.com.....on-2010-11
Margie| 11.15.10 @ 11:47AM
"Putting the primary focus on earmarks would be like a struggling family cutting back on eating out and seeing movies when even after doing all of that, they can't begin to afford their mortgage and car payments."
Yeah but at a MINIMUM that's what a struggling family would need to do. And why can't the "primary" focus be all inclusive? How about if it's a focus on all gov. spending?
And isn't earmarking a HUGE thing? Isn't it what the Democrats have especially used for eons and so corruptly?
Just one example is Robert Sheets Byrd ("Peace" be upon him, heh).. and how for 40 or so years he brought home the bacon and karded every square inch of W. Virginia with something that has his name on it. This is an extreme example, of course but it appears that most congressmen do it to one extent or another.
For instance instead of using state & local funds to build a library or school, they get Fed funds for them. Rather than relying on their own resources. they rely on US, the Fed taxpayer!
I say bring on that focus!
Al Adab| 11.15.10 @ 2:25PM
McConnell is on the floor now speaking about earmarks and the voters not understanding how small the dollar ammounts are. Mitch: we understand all too well. Do You?
Now he is acalling for a moratorium on earmarks. He and McCain are both speaking about "working together" with the Dems. Guys, end this and stop compromising.
There can be no compromise between thouse seeking freedom and those wishing to impose slavery. Remember?
Scott| 11.15.10 @ 4:23PM
Too many politicians, and political journalists like you, focus on the amount of money involved instead of the impact of the earmark. The Cornhusker Kickback was an earmark. The Louisiana Purchase was a kickback. It is a way to bribe a politician to vote for something that is unneeded, and a way for politicians to bribe others for campaign contributions. A billion is small potatoes in the budget. It's not so small when a few companies get the money.
astonerii | 11.15.10 @ 4:41PM
As said in the opening of the post, earmarks grease the wheels of massive spending bills. Get rid of the grease, and the wheels cannot carry such a heavy load. Then the massive bills would have to be cut back to essential needs because the congressmen who would vote for pork in his backyard will not vote for a bad bill that would get him primaried and eventually fired from his job.