Republicans are conflicted over earmark ban

[Townsend]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101109/pl_yblog_upshot/republicans-conflicted-over-earmark-ban

Tea party Republicans railed against earmarks this campaign season, and now that many tea partiers are headed to the Senate, longtime members of Congress are pushing for their first real shot at banning these member-directed spending provisions once and for all.

So why isn't everyone on board?

The Senate GOP leader, Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, is a conservative and longtime member of the Senate Appropriations Committee who has supported past bans on earmarks. But even he argues that earmarks--individual items that lawmakers personally insert into spending bills--serve a vital purpose for senators looking to bring home federal money to their constituents.

Maybe get rid of lobbyists then?

[Gaspar]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101109/pl_yblog_upshot/republicans-conflicted-over-earmark-ban

Maybe get rid of lobbyists then?

President Obama already did that, remember?

He eliminated all present and past lobbiests from taking any part in his administration. . .Expcept for Lynn, Frye, Munoz, Holder, Vilsack, Corr, Hayes, Patterson, Klain, Sutphen, Barnes, Gaspard, and Strautmanis. 

Ok, so he has more lobbiests than previous administrations, but they have all signed wavers!

We just need to get some wavers for congress to hand out.

[sgrizzle]

Everything is working perfectly, minus the exceptions.

[Townsend]

President Obama already did that, remember?

I don't care who does it.  I'd appreciate it though.


Well, unless they want to hire me.

[nathanm]

lol, get rid of lobbyists. After Citizens United, that isn't going to happen.

As far as earmarks go, as I've mentioned before I'm conflicted. They can be a useful tool when used appropriately for things like helping a cash-strapped small town replace their water treatment plant before the EPA shuts 'em down for violating environmental regulations. As with any tool, the earmark process can be abused and money wasted on completely useless things or funneled into a favorite lobbyist's business.

I think better rules regarding the volume of earmarks in dollars and the types of projects that can be funded would be very appropriate, but I don't know that I'd like to see them eliminated entirely.

[Conan71]

lol, get rid of lobbyists. After Citizens United, that isn't going to happen.

As far as earmarks go, as I've mentioned before I'm conflicted. They can be a useful tool when used appropriately for things like helping a cash-strapped small town replace their water treatment plant before the EPA shuts 'em down for violating environmental regulations. As with any tool, the earmark process can be abused and money wasted on completely useless things or funneled into a favorite lobbyist's business.

I think better rules regarding the volume of earmarks in dollars and the types of projects that can be funded would be very appropriate, but I don't know that I'd like to see them eliminated entirely.

McConnell was claiming on TV the other night that cutting earmarks doesn't save the taxpayer money.

How about this: Keep earmarks out of larger legislation like war funding, health care, waterways, etc. ad nauseum.  A couple of times a year, put together legislator "wish" bills which cover what would otherwise be known as ear-marks.  Make it an itemized list of the project name, amount requested, and benefit to the community or tax payers that appropriation would serve.  Let committee members or the full chamber vote up or down on the projects contained individually.  I feel it's dishonest to stash these requests into larger, unrelated bills to make sure they get funded.

Every elected official over the last 10 years has run on a battle cry of: "more transparency!"  I don't think you could get much more transparent, uh at least in Washington's terms.

[nathanm]

Once again I find myself agreeing with you, Conan. This is getting weird. 

I've long been a proponent (at least in word) of single-subject bills. Sometimes even a bill covering only a single subject will be ginormous, simply because there's a lot of federal law and if you want to change something it may well have to touch many different parts of it, but at least many of them would be smaller and easier to digest.

[Red Arrow]

Once again I find myself agreeing with you, Conan. This is getting weird. 

Nathan,
You are in BIG trouble.  Agreeing with Conan today and me agreeing with you a few days ago.

[Conan71]

Once again I find myself agreeing with you, Conan. This is getting weird. 

I've long been a proponent (at least in word) of single-subject bills. Sometimes even a bill covering only a single subject will be ginormous, simply because there's a lot of federal law and if you want to change something it may well have to touch many different parts of it, but at least many of them would be smaller and easier to digest.

States and local communities need federal funding for projects.  Our IDL project would have never happened so quickly (or at all) without federal funds for example.  I don't have a problem with the idea that our nation has an infrastructure to construct and maintain and there's a need for public hospitals, etc.  I simply can't stand the cloaked nature of the earmarking process.  I hate hearing: "Guess what just passed with the latest veteran's bill?".  There should be nothing in such a bill other than issues directly relating to vets.

It would be incredibly simple to do this, legislators just aren't doing it.  It wouldn't remove quid pro quo entirely from the legislative process because there could be strong-arming (vote for my bill and I will vote for yours), but at least it might put an end to projects like "the bridge to nowhere". 

As far as agreeing, most of us are here because we follow the political process.  I don't think any of us are for waste though I think at times there might be a sense of government being so big it's an impossible task to rein it in.

[nathanm]

Nathan,
You are in BIG trouble.  Agreeing with Conan today and me agreeing with you a few days ago.

Yeah, Nancy has already called me three times in the last week. Last time she threatened to come down here and whip me with her cat o' nine tails. 

Conan, I admit that I'm far more interested in dealing with the big problems before the little ones. I'm just not that concerned with a a billion here or or a billion there at the moment. Yeah, it eventually adds up to real money, but when we're spending a couple hundred billion a year to keep our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for no apparent gain it seems petty to argue about the relatively small stuff.

[Conan71]

Yeah, Nancy has already called me three times in the last week. Last time she threatened to come down here and whip me with her cat o' nine tails. 

Conan, I admit that I'm far more interested in dealing with the big problems before the little ones. I'm just not that concerned with a a billion here or or a billion there at the moment. Yeah, it eventually adds up to real money, but when we're spending a couple hundred billion a year to keep our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for no apparent gain it seems petty to argue about the relatively small stuff.

No reason we can't cut both places at once.  Future leaders hopefully will look at the prolonged involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and think twice before launching full-out military strikes.  Apparently neither country is sound enough to simply pull out the majority of troops.  I don't think we should have just laid there and taken it when we were attacked on 9/11, but prolonged involvement in Afghanistan has proven costly.  It's further unfortunate that Iraq soaked up needed resources which might have gotten us out of Afghanistan sooner.

I don't care to debate the merits of an Iraq invasion, that's been done enough on here.  I do think we should have kept Saddam on a short leash and dealt with him fully after our objectives were accomplished in Afghanistan. 

[we vs us]

Once again I find myself agreeing with you, Conan. This is getting weird. 

It's like I don't even know you any more.

[Hoss]

.....

I don't care to debate the merits of an Iraq invasion, that's been done enough on here.  I do think we should have kept Saddam on a short leash and dealt with him fully after our objectives were accomplished in Afghanistan. 

We should have dealt with him in Operation Desert Storm...

[Gaspar]

We should have dealt with him in Operation Desert Storm...

+1

[Conan71]

According to the Tulsa World the self-proclaimed "most conservative man in Congress", Senator Inhofe is against Sen. DeMint's proposal.  He's saying pretty much what Sen. McConnell was saying. 

"If the most conservative member of Congress can't tell the truth, no one else can.''

As part of a campaign that included weeks of planning, Inhofe vowed to point out the hypocrisy of those pushing for the moratorium and to unveil an alternative proposal that will resolve the earmark problem forever.

That will come in a speech Monday on the Senate floor.

"While they demagogue it and say they want to get rid of earmarks, they don't address the funding problem that we have,'' he said.

"Superfluous earmarks, I am opposed to them. Because in almost every case, those are appropriations that have not been authorized. I voted against them just because they didn't follow the process.''

If the proposal being pushed by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., were passed and followed, Inhofe said senators would give up their constitutional authority over spending and cede it to President Barack Obama.

He underscores that point by repeatedly attaching Obama's name to the DeMint proposal, as if the president were an original sponsor.

A moratorium on earmarks, Inhofe said, would not save taxpayers a single dime because it would give that spending authority to the president and let his administration direct where it goes.

DeMint is expected to seek a vote on his proposal at next week's Senate Republican Conference meeting.

Even if approved, Inhofe said, the proposal will be meaningless and nonbinding.

"It is all for show,'' he said. "He could pass it, and it won't make any difference.''

Inhofe said he would ignore it and continue his current practice of seeking projects such as those for Oklahoma's military bases.

Even though it would be nonbinding, DeMint believes his proposal could unite Senate Republicans with House Republicans, who implemented an earmark moratorium earlier, in taking a stand against "wasteful, pork-barrel spending.''

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20101111_16_A1_WASHIN598018&archive=yes

I'm going to start drafting a letter this afternoon to the members of the Oklahoma delegation along the lines of what we were discussing yesterday about separate "pet project" bills.  Certainly, Congresspeople are sent to look out for local as well as national interests when they are elected.  It's time though to be open about what the rest of us pay for when we encourage our Senators or Representatives to vote for a given measure.  The whole revolution of this election was supposed to be about people taking back control of an out-of-control government.  Legislators need to listen or we simply need to keep turning up the pressure by turning out more and more incumbents.