Politics

GOP Reps Cautiously Defend Earmarks, Some Say Ban Should be Temporary

In the wake of midterm elections that highlighted the need for fiscal restraint, the House passed a two-year earmarks ban to the delight of many voters. Now, some GOP Reps. have come out in cautious support of certain earmarks, and there are those who believe the moratorium should only last until the American people have a restored confidence in the process.

“I don’t find a problem with me deciding that I want some of the money in the state and tribal assistance grants going to help a community in Idaho rebuild their water system,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), the new chairman of the Interior and Environment spending subcommittee, told The Hill.

“I can make that determination because I know that district better than somebody from the EPA,” he added.

According to The Hill, he’s one of a number of congressmen who believe the earmarks process is a necessary part of government — a necessary part that must be used properly. And a never-ending ban may not be the best way to go about achieving reform of that tool.

Commerce and Justice subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) told The Hill he believes the earmark moratorium should be temporary because a blanket ban limits the ability of lawmakers to make policy. For example, he used a $1 million earmark to create the Iraq Study Group, and because of that got to assign it to an outside group, the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. With the ban, he said, now the administration gets the opportunity to assign future studies to whatever group it wants.

Homeland Security subcommittee Chairman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) said he supports the ban for now, but only until lawmakers figure out how best to reform the process.

“If you look at my past, I’ve always supported earmarks,” Aderholt told The Hill. “I’m not opposed to us putting a moratorium on it until we can get a better handle on how to address it.”

Other congressman shared their thoughts on the issue.

Transportation subcommittee Chairman Tom Latham (R-IA):

“I think there is a constitutional role for members of Congress to be able to decide where the federal government’s dollars go, and certainly members of Congress should have a role in that, but at this point I am very supportive of the moratorium,” he said. “We have got to send a message that this is not business as usual and we need to cut spending.”

Head of the Legislative Branch subcommittee Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL):

“My view is when we look at earmarks, it is a constitutional responsibility to direct spending, but the perception is that it is something we shouldn’t be doing. I don’t know when or if we would do it again,” [...] he said. “Right now, they’re off the table … if it does come back there will have to be some further reforms.”

But to constituents, some of the statements may sound familiar. It’s a similar message trumpeted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the end of last year during debate over the pork-filled “omnibus” bill:

In the past, GOP leaders have been hesitant to declare that all earmarks are unnecessary, and that they must be banished forever. Still, by voting last year to ban them for two years, they agreed something had to be done at least in the short term.

The issue for the lawmakers, it seems then, is not about who does or doesn’t support earmarks but rather how to use them and how to retrain Congress to use them with restraint. Still, many believe it is a slippery slope: one can almost always justify an earmark for his home district, but when taken collectively, the American people end up fronting the bill for projects that can’t be defended to all taxpayers.

For now, the House earmarks ban remains in place, and voters seem happy with it: Congress’s approval rating has jumped seven points since the 112th took over. It remains to be seen how long the ban will survive and how Reps — both Democrat and Republican — and the public will react if and when it expires.

Read the entire Hill article.

Comments (148)

1 2 3 4
  • WVRob
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:20pm

    We watched, we voted, we are still watching. Those voted in can be voted right back out. Yes earmarks are a small % but that’s not the point.

    Report Post » WVRob  
  • Diamondback
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:19pm

    Vote’m OUT in 2012 (or whenever they next come up for election)!

    Legislation should be restricted to ONE SUBJECT so that this BS back room dealing by “include this and I’ll remove that” etc. is STOPPED!

    One subject, one vote. (Kinda like one shot, one kill but different).

    Then we KNOW how they stand on that one subject. They can’t come back and say, “Well, I was actually voting FOR this provision even though I was against that. Blah, blah, blah.”

    ONE SUBJECT, ONE VOTE!

    If you agree, let’s crank up the heat on the Repubs in the House.

    Report Post »  
  • blacksmith
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:18pm

    These republican politicians are as bad as the democrat politicians. They all play us for stupid and only they know what is good for us. They expect us to believe that they will straighten this mess out in two years and then it is back to business as usual.This must be brought to an end. When these politicians come up for re-election replace them with true conservatives/libertarians. They believe that they are better at spending our money than the democrats are and they are no better just different.These earmarks are just another type of welfare/entitlment. They take our tax dollars and give it to someone else.

    Report Post »  
  • taxedenuf
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:14pm

    If you believe your pet project is worthy of spending taxpayer’s money from outside Idaho, make it a spending bill in the open and have a counted vote on that bill! Don’t slip in a bribe to some of your constituents so they will vote for you onto some must have piece of legislation like the war spending bill or the federal budget bills. That is what we hate, and that is what we deem earmarks. Bribes to your cronies and constituents with our money.

    Report Post »  
  • goldisgreat
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:13pm

    My old Senator Bob Bennett from Utah on most issues was a conservative, but he was the king of earmarks. I am so glad that the voters got smart and voted him out. It is not your money to give away! If you have extra give it back and let me decide who to give it to.

    Report Post »  
  • Docrow
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:10pm

    Keep voting them out!

    Report Post » Docrow  
  • Zombee
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:07pm

    The Tea Party Patriots must remain ever watchful for the progressive republicans in sheep’s clothes… and make sure that their political careers are limited and temporary.

    Report Post » Zombee  
  • Dale
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:04pm

    It seems that some congress critters still don’t get the message.

    Report Post » Dale  
  • carnyman68
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:01pm

    These clowns still do not get it with the earmarks. They think it is their money, their seat, their house. They do not understand it is OURS: OUR MONEY, OUR SEAT, OUR HOUSE. I do not know what it will take for these guys to understand. You would think November would have opened all of their eyes. Maybe they will get the idea in 2012 when they are unemployed.

    Report Post »  
  • Silversmith
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:58pm

    As long as the trough functions, the pigs will come there to eat. The question being asked is “how will states get federal money if there are no earmarks?” Personally I think Federal money should be under strong restrictions to states. There is entirely too much being wasted on pet projects and pay back. Infrastructure should really be the only thing we all pay for in any one state – and I don’t think you need ear marks to do it. That whole tradition corrupts our political process. It makes how we legislate a series of condoned bribes.

    Silversmith

    Report Post » Silversmith  
    • cykonas
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 3:12pm

      Silver,

      Why should there be ANY Federal money given to the States? If the Federal government is confined to those powers that are Constitutionally mandated to them, the money will never leave the States in the first place. That true, the Feds have nothing to give back.

      In the original scheme of our Constitutional foundation, as envisioned by the Founders, the Federal government was supposed to be the smallest, weakest, least intrusive level of government in our Republic. Is that what we have today?

      Let’s just keep the money in the States in the first place where we citizens have a better chance of controlling it. If we continue to “play along” with the DC crowd, who want us to believe that there is no other way to do things other than them being in complete and absolute control of everything, we will never be truly free. Ask no quarter and give none! Return the power to the States, if not for yourself then for your posterity.

      Report Post » cykonas  
  • GhostOfJefferson
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:58pm

    No, no, I don’t have to stop drinking entirely, no, I can still drink in moderation, yeah, moderation is key! I can still have some alcohol, it’s only one or two little drinks, nobody will know, it’s perfectly fine! I can quit anytime I want to!

    Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • cykonas
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 2:58pm

      Exactly, g of J. You have the picture. And listen, for those of you that want to continue to “drink” (have Washington run as usual) no problem. You can make voluntary individual contributions to the Department of Treasury at any time, and in any amount. Carry on my wayward sons (and daughters), just allow the rest of us to voluntarily opt out of the drunkfest. It’s the truly American way.

      Report Post » cykonas  
  • TheHonestAmerican
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:57pm

    The RINOS must go.

    Report Post »  
  • JohnnyJT
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:57pm

    The Fed Govt gets Too Much Money in Taxes… Period.

    Report Post » South Philly Boy  
  • heavyduty
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:55pm

    You want earmarks ban to be temporary, then how about your jobs be temporary as well.

    Report Post »  
  • cykonas
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:54pm

    Here’s how you permanently ban earmarks. Ready? Close down all of the non-Constitutionally mandated agencies and return ALL of that money to the States and individuals like our system was initially set up under the Constitution. No departments of tranportation, education, health and human services, commerce, labor, etc, etc, etc. Defend our borders, print and coin money, and protect patents and copyrights. Once these departments are gone they don’t need to collect the taxes to fund them anymore and we will get rid of tons of waste, duplication, and business/job stifling regulation. The DC clowns won’t have all their slush funds from which they currently reward their cronies and patrons with graft money drawn from OUR wallets. If they want to reward their patrons, fine; let them do it with THEIR money.

    At that point the States can decide what they want to do for their citizens and the citizens will have much greater control over the expenditures because the decisions will be made in the State capitol, not Washington DC.

    Don’t let these jerks fool you with the “temporary” business. OUR money is like heroin to them. It‘s got to be cut from it cold turkey and you can’t even have a little of it. Addicted is addicted, period. If you really want to drain the swamp, drain it of the control over the massive amounts of money they steal unjustly and 90% of the problems will go away on their own. True freedom: Try it, you’ll like it!

    Report Post » cykonas  
  • Mikee T
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:51pm

    My conservative friends……….let’s stop being a party to this bull@hit !!!! Let’s rally around a true american leader…..Allen West…… an African American conservative retired Lt. Colonel and an honorable american…..Let’s get them to nominate him……and then we steal much of the minority vote from Barry……..and won’t have to tolerate the “YOU RACIST” bull@hit any more…i’m done with liberals…time to beat them at their own game……take the race card away….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M

    Report Post »  
  • Grady Curve
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:49pm

    I just do not see and end to this endless political theatre in where nothing happens to politicians who break the law or subvert our constitution… there are communist and socialist surrounding this president who have vowed to bring down the USA… and do you see anyone republican or democrat calling for the investigation and arrest of these people… or Soros who has vowed a decline of our country…People we are being lead to thru the gates of slavery and we refuse to hold our elected officials accountable… I do not see this ending well for this country…. WILL YOU RISE UP?

    Report Post » Grady Curve  
  • hulagu
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:48pm

    Translation-Yeah,just don’t talk about it,they’ll just forget and we can go on business as usual.
    Go ahead with that attitude and see what happens. Earmarks are wrong and need to go away permanently. Any politician who thinks otherwise needs to do the same.

    Report Post »  
  • scott367
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:46pm

    If these clowns don’t get there act together I am voting Obama in 2012. They deserve the same treatment that the dems got in November if they are not understanding what we want.

    Report Post »  
    • drattastic
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:57pm

      You gotta be kidding me .How will that help anything? Just vote for whatever republican is running against the incumbent .You don’t vote for the socialist ,does that make any sense?

      Report Post » drattastic  
  • drattastic
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:44pm

    Sorry suckers earmarks got to go along with all other out of control spending .Fix it or start looking for a new line of work .You’ve been warned.

    Report Post » drattastic  
  • jds7171
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:42pm

    Hey idaho representative, if Idaho needs to rebuild a water supply they can do it. Same with utah where I am from. Stop taking all of our money so we can do what needs to be done here in our own states. Thats the best way it can be done, not by you idiots in congress.

    Report Post »  
    • randy
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:02pm

      Amen!

      Report Post » randy  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:50pm

      If it‘s tribal why don’t the casino revenues pay for it? I’m sick of the people on reservations wanting it both ways. If they want to have the reservation and live separate from the rest of us with their own separate rules then we should go ahead and let them take care of their own business.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • APEXIdaho
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 7:02pm

      Mr. Simpson, you are a Rep. from Idaho to do what is right for the whole USA not just for Idaho. You only have the powers granted in the constitution. If you did only that, federal taxes could be lower. If the project is so important it should be able to stand on it’s own. Taxes from someone in Maine should not go for some special project in Idaho unless it benifits everyone in the union.

      Report Post »  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on January 13, 2011 at 4:04pm

      Where do you think States get the money for unscheduled projects like new water treatment facilities? Duh.

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
  • BlueCollared
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:40pm

    It’s like an addict needing a fix. Excuse are like a-holes everybody’s got one. No earmarks!

    Report Post »  
  • What-A-Joke
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:38pm

    They just don’t get it. But we are the stupid ones?

    Report Post » What-A-Joke  
    • hud
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 3:00pm

      They don’t want to get it They want it their way.

      Report Post »  
  • constitutionaldirective
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:34pm

    This is OK.. THEY are temporary TOO!

    Report Post » constitutionaldirective  
    • Colonial Revolutionary
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:07pm

      My thoughts exactly. When did they vote to ban earmarks? Was I sleeping. One of these dolts on the record is from my home state of VA. Wish he was in my district I would vote him out in 2 years. They still don’t get it.

      Report Post » Colonial Revolutionary  
    • taebaggranny
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 6:56pm

      I find the comments very interesting…Especially the ones about cutting Entitlements..You always start your cuts with Social Security..Why not start the cuts with the WELFARE MONIES that are spent on pre-natal care for illegal aliens? (that’s before they have the 1st anchor baby!) And how about limiting the number of illigetimate babies we pay for for all tyhe women on WELFARE? Each new baby adds to the monthly check..These women don’t pay any taxes and never will..They go streight from the welfare rolls to the SSI rolls..For those of you that don’t know, SSI is all State money that comes out of YOUR pocket above and beyond the Welfare money that is Fed, State, & County money…ALL TAKEN FROM YOU AS TAXES!!! Then, if you work they take Social security, Medicare, State Disability, Unemployment, State and Federal taxes out of your check before you see any of the money you earn..I’m D@#$%$#@@ sick and tired of everyone that is too young to retire wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare 1st.. I worked long hard hours for my money and they TOOK THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE OUT OF EACH AND EVERY CHECK I EARNED!!! I didn’t go on welfare to raise my two youngest kids, even tho I was eligible to get that help. I worked two and sometimes three jobs to pay our bills, feed and cloth them and pay the Dr. and medicine bills when needed..Cut the WELFARE PROGRAMS That is the programs that none of the recipiants paid one penny into the system, ever..

      Report Post »  
  • tobywil2
    Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:33pm

    An earmark is a Congressperson’s way of rewarding political cronies and buying political support with your money!
    Earmarks highlight the major difference between capitalism and tyranny – the deployment of capital!
    In a capitalistic system, the entrepreneur invests capital with the objective of creating wealth and profit. The tyrant invests capital in pursuit of political advantage. Which do you think is more likely to create wealth and increase our standard of living?
    For an in-depth discussion of the evils of the earmarks, read Chapter 10, Earmarks, of the book “21st Century Common Sense” http://commonsense21c.com/

    Report Post » tobywil2  
    • jds7171
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:40pm

      Add your comments

      Report Post »  
    • 912828Buckeye
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:44pm

      When our national dept is paid off…………..HELL NO!

      Report Post » 912828Buckeye  
    • Rogue
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:54pm

      How about if the funds you seek are so important, you set each program up as a seperate Bill and vote on it. Let’s see how many congressmen want to vote YES on a Bill giving $2 million to study worm’s mating rituals in Arkansas. You are free to vote any way you wish, but lets have record of which funding Bills you vote yes or no on. And, as with any other Bill that comes down the pike from now on, lets have a financial offset to pay for it. Need those funds for worms? I guess you better take that $2mil out of the Education Department or Social Security. Let’s just see how popular you are with your consistuents after a couple of years of that.

      Report Post » Rogue  
    • Mister President
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:58pm

      Earmarks do not even account for 1% (that’s right ONE PERCENT) of Federal spending. Earmarks are not the problem. Entitlements are. Eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and anything else like that at the Federal level. Just eliminate it. Privatize it. Make people responsible for their own retirements and health care. Private charity is much more efficient than this institutionalized charity.

      Entitlements and defense, along with interest on the debt, account for most of the budget. You cannot have a serious discussion about balancing the budget and paying down the debt without cutting entitlements and defense spending and raising taxes. It’s simple math. Those things will necessarily be cut here very soon, as the dollar becomes worthless.

      Mister President  
    • oldguy49
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:07pm

      i am in florida and mr. crenshaw WE ARE WATCHING !!

      Report Post »  
    • Cliff
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:07pm

      @912828Buckeye
      I agree 100% no earmarks… less taxes federally means more money at home where it belongs… use that money to fix your fricken tribal water supply moron republican… and they wonder why the people are so mad at the politicians!!!!

      http://www.mentordvd.com

      Report Post » Cliff  
    • EgoBrain
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:07pm

      Big mistake. I hope they think twice.

      Report Post » EgoBrain  
    • Cliff
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:10pm

      @Mister President
      1% doesn’t sound like much… you know… unless you attach it to trillions!!! We are tired of this crap spending… I cant do it at my home or business… why should they be able to do it with my tax dollars?

      http://www.mentordvd.com

      Report Post » Cliff  
    • NoMoreGray
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:11pm

      @Mister Pres
      Your right to say the $ amount of earmarks is small and in fact is often used to try to convince us someone is for physcal responsibility. But while the $ are a small part of the story there application is the whole problem. They represent a government that thinks it can spend without and against the will of the American people.
      So don’t be fooled by the convincing arguments or the small $ amount. Pay attention to those that still defend the need to govern outside the confines of the legislative process.

      Report Post »  
    • NoMoreGray
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:20pm

      I do however disagree with an outright ban on Earmarks. I think every year… say September… an “Earmark bill” should be introduced. This bill should be the only opportunity to request such funding and should include all proposed earmark spending. This bill should then be opened for debate and amendments. Elected officials then have the chance to defend these programs they say are so important. Finally any particular item can be removed by amendment and we get the transparency a Republic requires.
      My guess is the bill would not be very big… at least in election years!

      Report Post »  
    • Aither
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:20pm

      o they think we will just forgive their unnecessary spending because they’re Republicans? Heck No! We voted them in to cut spending not because they have an “R” in their name. As far as I am concerned this is the Republicans last chance to do the Conservative thing and live by the rules of the Constitution. If they don’t then we need another party that does. Whether that be Libertarian or a whole new party.

      Report Post » Huguenot Descendant  
    • Clive
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:32pm

      @misterpresident. agreed. you gotta cutout the big dogs of cash, entitlements and defense, if you really want to get serious. but no one wants to touch those things on either side. too afraid.

      @theblaze IT department, why can’t i just reply to misterpresident. invest some of your “gold” advertising money into better message board software.

      Report Post »  
    • Kurty C Wipe
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:34pm

      I see Ashton and Dumi have been brainwashed, probably by Streisand. I wonder if the will pick up my part of the tab for Barrycare? FN Hollyweird.

      Report Post » Kurty C Wipe  
    • Reagan/DeMint.disciple
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:34pm

      The problem with earmarks are that they are used in a bill to essentially buy votes.. NO EARMARKS, period.

      Report Post » one years food ration like glenn says  
    • forliberty1976
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:35pm

      @AngryTexanFromAmarillo

      How does this bad math continue to pop up all over the place. 307 million times 5 million is no where near 1.5 billion… it is $1,535,032,750,000,000 … yea thats QUADrillion… or 1000 billion.

      I realize people no longer are shocked by even billion anymore… but that is not monoply money we are talking about here… this is real debt that we will have to pay for eventually.

      Money easily given is easily taken away… I would rather be free.

      Report Post »  
    • richauthor
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:35pm

      Roll up your sleeves, Tea Party… there’s a lot more work to do. Apparently some RINOs got in this past election and still don’t believe we mean business.

      Report Post » richauthor  
    • HappyInFlorida
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:51pm

      Just to correct AngryTexanFromAmarillo’s math, $5 to every citizen would be $1.5 Billion. Giving $5 Million to each citizen would take $1.5 quadrillion. If we wanted to give away $1 trillion to each citizen, each would get about $3,300.

      Report Post »  
    • Polwatcher
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:52pm

      If I ever hear of my Rep. using earmarks, I will work to defeat him.

      Report Post »  
    • tobywil2
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 2:11pm

      For a complete discussion of the evils of the earmarks, read chapter 10 of the book “21st CENTURY COMMON SENSE” or go to http://commonsense21c.com/files/CE-3-16-2009.pdf (opens an pdf file of an article on earmarks) to learn more about earmarks.
      http://commonsense21c.com/

      Report Post » tobywil2  
    • sWampy
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 2:40pm

      We need an amendment that all bills, all court rulings become void every 10 years and must be renewed/retried individually after they expire.

      Report Post »  
    • walkwithme1966
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 2:48pm

      @ANGRYTEXANFROMAMARILLO – your math is wrong – you must have gone to school at Texas Tech!!!
      http://wp.me/pYLB7-v9

      Report Post » walkwithme1966  
    • hud
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 2:57pm

      !% sounds like a baby step back from the abyss.

      Report Post »  
    • bolec slodkie
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 3:22pm

      Everything in the budget must be “marked.“ If the entire defense budget were not ”marked” then Gates could spend the entire budget on pink berets and tutus. It is the House of Representatives job to create the budget. The first earmark I would pass is to defund the Senate Appropriations Committee. The budget is solely at the discretion of the house.
      As with many other commentators I have no issue with earmarks, but the process.

      Report Post »  
    • timej31
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 3:24pm

      They will soon be banned forever. Give it a couple of election cycles. Watch.

      Report Post » timej31  
    • snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 3:36pm

      There should be no earmarks; if they are so important, bring each one of them up for an independant up or down vote.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Cobra Blue
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 4:03pm

      Thanks you Republicans. Just as I suspected. You are just a politician like the rest. Either take a tough principled stance or get out. Course neither will happen…Hey Folks…Word Up…politicians will NEVER fix the problems we have in Washington. Why you ask? Dah! ….you are asking the problem makers to fix their own problems. Sorta like the fox guarding the hen house. My daddy use to tell me if you want something done right do it yourself. = Self-Reliance.

      Report Post »  
    • pamela kay
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 4:26pm

      Hey TOBYWIL2, loved your comment. As far as harry goes he has no problem stealing from the people. I would love to see something stolen from this little weasle and all the others who have taken advantage of our tax-payers money. I pledge alligience to the flag . I will support a president that honors our constitution and our flag, and represents the American people. God bless you Toby and happy new year.

      Report Post » pamela kay  
    • NoMoreGray
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 4:30pm

      Just watched (R) Frank Wolf on Cavuto, Virginia I hope you fix this problem next time you get a chance. This guy is and Arrogant disrespectful dodger. Comes off as an elite educating Cavuto and the rest of us to things we are just to stupid to understand.

      Report Post »  
    • teddieandkaylee
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 5:14pm

      People who state that earmarks are ONLY one percent of the budget are stupid to the nth degree.
      Earmarks are a symptom of a demented society bent on self destruction. Earmarks highlight an attitude of a lack of concern for the hard earned monies of taxpayers. Every politician should be challenge to come to work every week of their administration with suggestions on how to reduce the size and spending of the government and put a stop to any and all programs that are not in the best interest of the people of the country.
      Bureaucrats must be challanged to get their jobs done with at least 25 percent less cost.
      Workers such as the SEC people that were watching porn on their office computers must be fired.
      A moratoriium on increasing any costs or programs must be put in place until such time as the budget reflects a surplus and the government is able to start to pay down the debt.
      Entitlements must be reduced. I wonder why there are still over 60,000 troops in Germany and Japan. Surely there is a lot of waste here?

      Report Post »  
    • Republic Under God
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 5:18pm

      @Mister President

      I submit it is not necessarily taxes that need to go up, but tax revenues. Historically, when taxes are lowered, activity increases and subsequently so does revenue. Which is why saying the tax cuts for the wealthy will cause a deficit of $700 billion is folly.

      Report Post » Republic Under God  
    • jzs
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 5:23pm

      Not true. Bush’s tax cuts increased the national debt. And you say they led to “increased economic activity”? The economy crashed actually.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • APEXIdaho
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 7:05pm

      Spending more money than they have is what increased the debt!

      Report Post »  
    • DisillusionedDaily
      Posted on January 12, 2011 at 8:30pm

      I personally think that spending hundreds of thousands to teach people in Africa how to install a condom is a giant wast of money as most Africans will not use them unless the gorilla insists.

      1. All earmarks should be spent on projects in the USA only.
      2. There should be no more than ten earmarks attached to any bill.
      3. No more than $2 million should be allowed in any earmark.

      Any earmark that doesn’t adhere to the above should have to be submitted as a bill to be voted on the House and the Senate according to its merit.

      Report Post » DisillusionedDaily  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love