Majority Eyes Earmark Ban

[jamesrage]

I hope they pass it and stick with it. 

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_99/news/43906-1.html?page=1
As they try to reclaim the ethical high ground during a difficult stretch, House Democratic leaders are considering a dramatic move: declaring a party-wide ban on earmarks this year.

The idea, floated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a leadership huddle Tuesday, is for House Democrats to outflank their Republican counterparts, who have mulled and rejected such a moratorium in recent years.

The discussion was brief and inconclusive, sources with knowledge of the session said. Leaders decided they needed to explore it further with Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.). But if top Democratic brass decides to embrace the ban, it would likely have far-reaching consequences — and meet stiff resistance from some corners of the Democratic Caucus that cherish earmarks as a constitutionally protected legislative prerogative and a political necessity in an increasingly hostile environment for incumbents.

For the current fiscal year alone, members of both parties in both chambers secured 9,499 earmarks worth a total of $15.9 billion, according to a study by Taxpayers for Common Sense

[Gaspar]

I hope they pass it and stick with it. 

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_99/news/43906-1.html?page=1
As they try to reclaim the ethical high ground during a difficult stretch, House Democratic leaders are considering a dramatic move: declaring a party-wide ban on earmarks this year.

The idea, floated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a leadership huddle Tuesday, is for House Democrats to outflank their Republican counterparts, who have mulled and rejected such a moratorium in recent years.

The discussion was brief and inconclusive, sources with knowledge of the session said. Leaders decided they needed to explore it further with Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.). But if top Democratic brass decides to embrace the ban, it would likely have far-reaching consequences — and meet stiff resistance from some corners of the Democratic Caucus that cherish earmarks as a constitutionally protected legislative prerogative and a political necessity in an increasingly hostile environment for incumbents.

For the current fiscal year alone, members of both parties in both chambers secured 9,499 earmarks worth a total of $15.9 billion, according to a study by Taxpayers for Common Sense

The odds on this passing in this congress:  2,345,567,987,655 : 1

[nathanm]

The odds on this passing in this congress:  2,345,567,987,655 : 1

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. They're not talking about passing a law, they're talking about a Democratic party rule.

One would hope that if the Democrats do what the Republicans failed to in their own party, it would shame the Republicans into action within their own party.

[Gaspar]

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. They're not talking about passing a law, they're talking about a Democratic party rule.

Yes, that is better. 

I think I'd rather see it as a law.

[RecycleMichael]

...it would shame the Republicans into action within their own party.

That's a good one...and pigs fly...

[Conan71]

That's a good one...and pigs fly...

As you wish

[Gaspar]

Is it like creating a "Blue Ribbon Panel on Deficit Reduction?"

[nathanm]

Yes, that is better. 

I think I'd rather see it as a law.

So would I, but it's not on the table at the present time.

Earmarks wouldn't be so bad if they had to be approved by a committee made up of Senators/Representatives from many states in many regions. As it is, the one guy sticks it in the bill and it's there. That's the biggest problem.

They're a reasonable idea in principle but the execution, as with most things in Washington, sucks a big one. I do wonder why they didn't become such a big thing until after the Republicans controlled the federal government. I don't blame them specifically, (they certainly aren't the only ones who do it!) but it is an interesting correlation that I think deserves further scrutiny.