Will Republicans Punt on Earmark Reform?
- Posted on September 16, 2010 at 1:33pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
As fiscal restraint becomes a popular rallying cry this political season, Politico looks at how Republicans are planning on handling earmarks once the party-imposed, one-year ban expires. The message isn’t too clear:
Rep. Eric Cantor
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor indicated in August that earmarks could make their way back but would be allowed based on “merit, not muscle.” He tried to clarify Wednesday, telling Politico that his party has “learned its lesson, and a new majority will spend its time and energy cutting spending, not increasing it, and that includes earmarks.”
House Minority Leader John Boehner is hedging, saying Republicans banned earmarks because of a broken process spurred by Democrats but that “whatever happens in November, the need for bipartisan reform will continue.”
Yet House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence said Wednesday that Republicans are still determined to “end earmarks as we know them.”
“The American people are tired of spending as usual in Washington, D.C., and we need to close the favor factory and fundamentally reform the way we spend people’s money,” Pence said.
Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake, the most outspoken critic of earmarks, hopes to use the large influx of fiscally conservative Republicans to push an all-out ban on the earmarking of old. But short of that, he’s going to prod leadership to force a ban on earmarking for companies who donate to a lawmaker’s reelection campaign. …
“It was pretty easy to do a one-year moratorium when we kind of knew that we weren’t going to do appropriations bills this year,” Flake said. “So the real test will be what we do when we’re in charge.”
“I’d prefer to get rid of [earmarks] until at least we balance the budget,” Mulvaney told Politico.
Rogers said he’s open to reform and promises to abide by what the conference decides, though he still wants to make sure lawmakers retain the power of the purse.
“I think with complete transparency and a layered review, so that we weed out the unqualified, there is obviously a need for a member to be able to come on out to the Congress for a particular need in his or her district that the regular order is not solving,” Rogers told Politico.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 593 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 420 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 386 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 376 Comments
Faith
Arab-Muslim Character to Join DC Comics‘ ’Green Lantern’ Series Read More- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 420 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 386 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 420 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (56)
shawnneitz
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 4:56pmReduce earmarks by having a line item vote and line item presidential veto. This would also demand that everyone will read the bill before they vote on it.
We have too many laws, too many programs, and too many taxes to support them all.
This will tell who each person in power is very quickly! The rinos wont be able to hide in an elephant suit!
Report Post »oldsalty1
Posted on September 18, 2010 at 12:26amYour idea is good but we need the ability to override a presidential line item veto in each instance. If not Obama could prevent anything presented by a conservative from being passed.
Report Post »Truncheon
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 4:23pmAmerigo writes: “If you want money, do the work and have some debate on it”
No, Amerigo, wrong. You don’t justify criminal acts on the part of the Federal government by having some “debate”.
The Congress has *no Constitutional authority* to spend the money on anything not specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Debate, no debate, earmarks, executive order, no way, no how.
This isn’t an argument of methodology.
Report Post »Amerigo Vespucci
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 4:10pmIf you call an “earmark” what it really is, which is a “short-cut” to getting money for a cause you care about without having to do all the work of drafting a bill to get it – it makes sense that we should be rid of it. If you want money, do the work and have some debate on it instead of “earmarking” it and holding the work of others hostage to your desires.
Report Post »Alinskyrevenge
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 4:06pmVery likely.
Report Post »Room 101
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 4:05pmPart of the solution is re-establishing States’ rights. Unfortunately, too many States want the government cheese and goodies from Washington. There are too many governors and legislatures willing to cede their constituents’ liberty for the federal handouts. Every time a State cashes that check, the U.S. government buys a larger piece of the action.
Until enough of We The People lambaste and embarrass our Congressional delegates for bringing home the pulled pork sandwiches, as opposed to them feeling comfortable bragging about it on their official websites, nothing will change. Cut the spending, let us keep more of the money we earned, and we’ll decide what is truly worth spending the money on at the State and local level.
Report Post »Truncheon
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 4:00pmEvery Federal entitlement program is criminal. Every earmark is criminal. The Department of Education is a criminal enterprise. The Department of Energy is a criminal enterprise. The Environmental Protection Agency is a criminal enterprise.
Every dollar of taxation devoted to funding these things, to the tune of ~1.5 trillion a year, has been stolen.
These are the facts.
Report Post »Truncheon
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 3:53pm“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison
“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity, [to approve this charitable measure]would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” — President Franklin Pierce
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson
“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton
Report Post »Freedomwatcherguy
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 3:40pmDeath to earmarks! Guess this is a “write your congressman” moment….
Report Post »Truncheon
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 3:54pmThat will be about as effective as writing Don Corleone about your opposition to paying his protection money….
Report Post »Truncheon
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 3:12pmSawman writes: “If you want to give your friends a chunk of change to study the sexual habits of earthworms, or some other such worthy endeavor, why don’t you introduce a bill and ask for it”
Here is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. You just assume that funding research is legitimate, but earmarks aren’t the way to go about it. Wrong!!!
The Congress has *no Constitutional authority* to fund research of any sort!
Article 1, Section 8 enumerates *all* the things the Congress has authority to fund and tax for. In total. Charity is not among them, research is not among them. It’s time to wake up.
Report Post »zagfan
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 3:07pmHate to throw a wet blanket here…as long as they use words like “only necessary” and “reform” they are lying through their teeth. Every one of them think their earmarks are necessary because they all want reelected! I absolutely do not see a huge change coming unless we hold their feet to the fire! They are, after all POLITICIANS!
Report Post »Truncheon
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 3:02pmAll this talk about earmarks is a calculated distraction, and anytime you hear a Republican yammer on about them you should immediately be suspicious.
Earmarks are not the problem, they are just one of thousands of symptoms of the problem. Focusing on one symptom permits the ruling class to distract everyone from the disease itself. Every Republican blathering about earmarks is doing *precisely* that, *precisly* to distract us rubes.
The sum total of things the Congress is permitted to tax us for, and spend for, is contained here in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. There aren’t very many things, and bridges, libraries, research, and art are not among them:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
This isn’t about earmarks, that’s just one of many methods the Congress uses when engaging in the criminal practice of taxing and spending for things they are forbidden any jurisdiction over. We don‘t care about the method du’jour, we care about the criminal practice of violating Constitutional limits on Congressional power…..in totality.
Don’t be distracted by the crooks on either side of the aisle. The government is not yet dominated by Tea Party Constitutionalists, and it won’t be this November either. This is going to be a long battle, and we need to keep our eye on the goal.
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:40pmIt should be law that all bills under consideration upon the hill should follow these simple rules.
Report Post »1. no more than 50 pages long, no exceptions.
2. must be posted online for 60 days prior to vote on floor so constituents can read and express opinion to elected, not online no vote.
3. no earmarks or pork of any kind, no add ons peroid.
4. all elected represenitives must read bill and then take an independantly authored test on the bill to prove they read it.
5. all elected represenitives shall for sware to forfit all property public and private if they are ever found in violation of the constitution.
6. all elected officials shall be paid a yearly salery equal too that of the average medium income in their disrtic, determined by private audits.
7. all elected officials shall be bodily present for a minimum of no less than 80% of all roll calls/votes.
8. all elected officials shall on at least two occasions yearly hold large public meetings to discuss issues pertainent to their constituents.
9. the 14th. amandment shall be rewritten to its orrigional form.
10. Presidental executive orders shall require a 67% approval vote from congress at all times in order to be enacted into law.
11. it shall be a felony to be a member of any political, private, or other public entity that openly supports any other type of govenance than Republic/democrocy.
12. it shall be a felony to influence any member of the federal government in any way, other than one voice one vote. In other words, Pacs, and think tanks are now felonies.
13. It shall be illegal for attornies/lawyers to run for federal office of any type except for judgeships.
Time 2 Revolt
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 4:08pmAlthough I don’t agree with everything on your list, as a whole, a list of requirements makes way too much sense to be considered in our government.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:35pmhttp://www.republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/
Report Post »Republicans have had this site up for months. I think they have introduced about ten bills that would remove earmarks and reduce the deficit. I do believe the majority party has voted ALL down including the one to freeze THEIR own pay, like they did to old people with their SS checks this year!
GO THERE AND VOTE EVERY WEEK! Make your own suggestions on where to CUT FEDERAL SPENDING!
betterdeadthanred
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:34pmbribery, by anyother name is still bribery! many times, these earmarks are requested by companies or individuals not even constituents of the bribe takers! how can us citizens hire lobbiest to get favors from our congressperson or senator?
Report Post »Truncheon
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 3:05pmIf the Congress lived within it’s enumerated powers, lobbyists would cease to exist, for there would be nothing they could gain.
Report Post »nordspan
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:12pmHow in the world did ear-marks actually get started? Was it a backroom (if you pat my back) deal/favor?
If I buy something I know facevalue, upfront the expense – wow! What a concept that Washington could adopt and just tell us the upfront cost. For heavens sake, even car dealers are being forced into the direct approach now. (And yes, FORCED by the patrons that buy their cars!)
Report Post »leftylemn
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 3:29pmLobbying began in the lobby of the Willard hotel in D.C. just outside the White House. I forget which President, but he frequented the bar there in the lobby drinking mint juleps. Special interest groups began to show up there to solicit favors from the President. Thus the term lobbiest.
Report Post »sawman
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:09pmEarmarks suck. If you want to give your friends a chunk of change to study the sexual habits of earthworms, or some other such worthy endeavor, why don’t you introduce a bill and ask for it instead of attaching it to some really important bill. We the people are sick of it. If republicans start trying to get back into earmarks in the future, they are finished. Republicans…..get real, and take a stand, and stand on it. Earmarks, whether from a Democrat, Independant, or a Republican still suck.
Report Post »mailman
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:06pmNO MORE EARMARKS.They are not hearing what the people are saying.Earmarks are a payback for support and votes and a misuse of government(OUR) money.I don’t think they are getting the message.How about doing away with lobbyists also.
Report Post »Animator
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:02pmEarmarks have to go. And while they’re at it, how about a total prohibition on lobbyists? Political influence buying and selling must end. Shut the lobbying business in DC down permanently!
Report Post »mailman
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:02pmNO MORE EARMARKS.How about throwing out the lobbyists with them.If you want earmarks we don’t want you.Hoe plain and simple must it get.,
Report Post »Mike in WV
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:01pmThis issue will separate the wheat from the chaff in the republican party. If you’re serious about cutting spending you will be against earmarks.
Report Post »redneckphilosopher
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 1:55pmI believe earmarks and lobbyist are the biggest reasons for Washington corruption I have no idea how they get away with it. These are the same temptations we are sending the newblood to face. So we are going to have to watch them as well and demand someone does away with it.
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:31pm“Earmarks” are a big reason for the Washington corruption but the “Fourth Branch of Government,” the Bureaucracy has a much greater effect on our economy than the “Earmarks.”
Rules, regulations and fines created and imposed by the Bureaucracy and enforced upon a “guilty until proven innocent” basis increase the cost of everything you buy and can prevent or delay the establishment of whole industries.
See “21st Century Common Sense” Chapter 8 for a case study of the Bureaucracy sabotaging one of our largest industries. http://commonsense21c.com/
Report Post »FedUpAlready
Posted on September 17, 2010 at 1:10pmI agree with you, but, we must also take into consideration the number of goods and services, being subsidized by the Gov.! Farmers are being paid for not growing crops, the prices of corn, sugar, cotton, milk etc. are all being artificially inflated to get the vote of Legislators. The middle class is struggling because, what higher prices don’t take, the taxman does. We need to get rid of all lobbyists, prevent any and all donations by private companies and corporations to campaigns. The same amount should be given to each candidate and no more once they get through the primaries. We all know corporations don’t pay taxes they just pass on the cost, so they shouldn’t be able to sway the outcome of elections. And, no fair bundling either!
Report Post »flagbearer
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 1:55pmEnd all earmarks. If something needs to be financed, then do so openly in a bill for it alone and vote on it. And, it should be against ethics to earmark for companies who donated to campaigns. Come on, America, let’s end this nonsense and irresponsibility. America is nearly bankrupt. Tighten the belt and do with only barest necessities.
Report Post »wingedwolf
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 7:05pmAmen amen amen
Report Post »Weetsie
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 1:50pmAdd your comments
Report Post »Weetsie
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:03pmYes earmarks should go completely. But I didn’t hear any of them say anything about all of the massive government spending. The public sector needs massive lay offs and pay freezes just like the private sector has had and will continue to endure. If these people are REAL CONSERVITIVES, they will try to cut the public sector jobs drastically or we will still be drowning in debt.
Report Post »pepperanne
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 3:05pmweesie that tim hawkins video was one of the best ive seen yet
Report Post »Weetsie
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 3:56pmLove that Man!!!! Tim Hawkins Rules… check out his other videos. LMAO
Report Post »PostProgressiveAmerican
Posted on September 17, 2010 at 5:26amJust say no to pork! No earmarks. No pet projects. No special interests. No pork barrel spending.
If they want money for roads or infrastructure (for example), submit them all as a group (single bill) and stop attaching individual riders to unrelated bills. After all, what is it called when one exchanges his vote on one bill for money (pork)…it isn’t compromise, it is legalized bribery.
Vote out the Progressive cronies (both R and D)! Restore honor and ethics in Gov’t.
Report Post »AMERICANCITIZEN
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 1:43pmEarmarks are unconstitutional, and should be banned. Our representatives need to understand they must follow the constitution, this is one of the biggest problems with American politics, spending money for favors and votes, this is criminal. Let’s put a end to it
Report Post »Danglinbags
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:07pmWe need these congressmen to repeal the constitution and get to giving us our god given rights to house, clothes, food, and broadband. This is America, and we don’t even have the decency to do that!? Olbermann/Maddow 2016!
tobywil2
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:11pmEARMARKS AND CAPITALISM:
Exactly what is an “EARMARK”? Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia1 list the following definition of “EARMARKS”: “In US politics, an “EARMARK” is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees”.
A simpler, more direct definition would be “Congressional provision conferring special privileges or distributing wealth to political cronies”. If you accept this definition, why would you ever reelect a Congressman who sponsored an “EARMARK,” unless you were one of his cronies?
Few “EARMARKS” expend less wealth than was used to start the FORD MOTOR COMPANY or APPLE COMPUTER or the other private enterprise projects that have produced great wealth.
Can you imagine an “EARMARK” funding Thomas Edison and directing him to invent the light bulb? If an “EARMARK” had been passed to fund Thomas Edison’s invention of the light bulb, do you think he would have accepted the money along with a partner whose objective was political power instead of profit? Hardly. If he had, we would probably still be using candles.
In practice, few “EARMARKS” return any value to the Nation’s Wealth. Some even return a liability, reducing the Nation’s wealth even more than the original cost.
In 2008(the latest year that data is available) the appropriations2 for “EARMARKS” total $16.5 billion.
The UNITED STATES’ “Nominal GDP”3 for 2008 was $14,264.6 billion. So why should we concern ourselves over such a paltry sum of $16.5 billion? After all, it is less than 0.12% of the GDP. The “real GDP per capita”5 growth over the last fifty years has been 2.13% per year. This is probably the best available measurement of the increase in individual productivity. So the “EARMARKS” consume well over 5% of the yearly growth in productivity. $16.5 billion could provide the seed money for hundreds of new enterprises with the capacity to create unlimited wealth.
The nation’s assets (Energy, labor, especially highly skilled or educated labor and materials) are limited. Once those assets are consumed they are no longer available. Most of these assets are used to produce “consumable assets” so the amount of assets available for economic growth is extremely limited. Any waste of this available capital has a significant effect on future economic growth and your prosperity.
More important than the dollar waste are the types of assets squandered. Many of the “EARMARKS” are grants for scientific research paying for the waste of scientific talent and making this talent unavailable for real economic growth projects. The wasteful expenditure of construction materials, labor and equipment limit the useful projects that can be pursued. Other “EARMARKS” give political cronies an advantage over their competition, thus raising your cost of living and limiting your opportunities.
Individual freedom (CAPITALISM) selects projects based upon the belief that the project will produce wealth. “EARMARKS” are selected to reward political cronies or create new cronies for the next election. The effect of “EARMARKS” is to increase the personal power or the personal wealth of the aspiring “PEERS” that propose them.
The “earmarks” are a direct assault on our individual freedom and the nation’s wealth. Any Congressperson who supports “Earmarks” has to be a RINO who has trouble differentiating between his campaign fund and the Federal Budget. Only if you are one of his political cronies could he have your best interest at heart.
http://commonsense21c.com/
Report Post »Weetsie
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:13pm@Danglebags… Hey, I read a survey the other day that said when people are employed, they are much happier because they depend on themselves and not the government. Maybe you should try it sometime.
Report Post »Weetsie
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:16pmHere’s a wonderful little jingle for you Dangles! Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:16pmDingleberry so silly!
Report Post »You always say just what you think will make people mad (and take up lots of bandwidth).
Silly, silly Dinglewhatsis!
pepperanne
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 2:55pmdang you dont have any right to anything! God put us here with nothing. Its up to you to provide for yourself!! Get a life. And p.s stop living on my dime get a job already
Report Post »Iliketea
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 5:03pmyes! yes! Yes
Report Post »Debrabate
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 7:15pmWe need to ban earmarks outright.
Report Post »ncd22124
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 10:31pmThere’s a pretty good case to be made that only earmarks are constitutional. It’s the 99.99% of federal spending that is decided by unelected administrators that is problematic.
From Article 1, Section 9:
Report Post »No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
broker0101
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 1:39pmWhy don’t I trust Rep. Flake?
Report Post »four4me
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 4:21pmbecause he’s an amnesty, cap and trade loving RINO.
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 5:14pmI swear, a good portion of you are completely without a sense of humor.
Report Post »mzmaj7
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 10:58pmhaha
Report Post »