Personally, I’d rather see a requirement that earmarks have a
legitimate federal perspective — that is, be used for federal,
constitutional activities rather than local projects — than a
blanket ban on earmarks. I think the fixation with earmarks is
overblown and I’d rather the focus be on much larger spending
programs. But I nevertheless think the Senate Republicans should
adopt the moratorium for the very reason Senator McConnell
outlined: this is the bare minimum people expect as a gesture that
Republicans are more credible on spending. Rejecting the moratorium
and opting for earmarks would be a sign the GOP still wants to
campaign as a limited government party but govern as a big spending
one.
David W| 11.15.10 @ 4:39PM
Precisely. If the GOP can't handle something simple like banning earmarks (or providing sufficient justification for an earmark that isn't only for the national spoon museum of Gooberville, Texas) then the next cycle will see the Democrats in control again.
Oldefarte| 11.15.10 @ 4:40PM
I agree [especially with the emphasis on the larger picture of overall spending reduction]. This BULLEXCREMENT has got to stop now, and if earmark elimination is the first step, so be it!!!!!!!
Tim*| 11.15.10 @ 11:54PM
"Congress returned Monday to a tumultuous political landscape, with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell conceding to a top demand of the tea party movement by endorsing a ban on earmarks.
McConnell, a master of purveying federal pork for his home state of Kentucky, had stood firm in his defense of the practice. But an insurgent group of conservatives led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) had rallied enough senators to defeat McConnell if the issue came to a vote.
With just two GOP senators on the record in support of McConnell's position, the minority leader announced his reversal on the Senate floor moments after the chamber was gaveled into session after the midterm-election break. "