Earmarks
I'm feeling a little shy about starting a conversation here, being generally new to Ricochet and all. But before I followed a link from NRO to Ricochet, I was a pretty faithful NRO reader, and this NRO upheaval (shall we call it) caught my eye. In the NRO article I link to, "the most conservative senator," as NRO calls him, writes that we must not eliminate earmarks, and that those who propose doing so are merely "demagoguing." Sen. Inhofe's article is titled "Eliminating Earmarks is a Phony Issue."
For anyone who doesn't read NRO regularly, here's my point: comments are a pretty new feature on NRO, and most posts get somewhere between 0 and 5 comments, in my experience. But Sen. Inhofe's article got 71 comments! I'm thinking that people feel pretty strongly about the whole earmarks thing.
So I have a few questions for Ricochet readers:
1) Earmarks were one of John McCain's big issues, and the conventional wisdom during his campaign was that it was a losing issue and no one cared about them. Is the NRO readership just a select subset of people who do care? Or does their reaction say something about how the electorate has changed over the last two years, as a result of government-gone-wild and the Tea Parties?
2) Do you think Sen. Inhofe will get the message on earmarks?
3) If the politician whom some observers rate as the Most Conservative Senator still thinks that he can get away with stating that "Eliminating Earmarks is a Phony Issue," is there any hope at all for our country?
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Earmarks
First, allow me to offer you a cordial greeting. Welcome to our circle. You will find here a gracious and thoughtful membership.
As for earmarks, the issue is financially insignificant, but philosophically important. The practice is corrupt. Earmarks subvert democracy by allowing politicians to buy votes from selected constituencies or gather contributions in exchange for favors. It's time to end them.
Aug '10
Re: Earmarks
I echo all that Paules said above. Relatively financially insignificant but very philosophically important. If Republicans would unilaterally forgo earmarks that would say a lot about their commitment to fiscal responsibility and a retreat from the idea that each Congressman's job is to "bring home the bacon." That hog done been stripped clean...
Nov '10
Re: Earmarks
~Paules: First, allow me to offer you a cordial greeting. Welcome to our circle. You will find here a gracious and thoughtful membership.
As for earmarks, the issue is financially insignificant, but philosophically important. The practice is corrupt. Earmarks subvert democracy by allowing politicians to buy votes from selected constituencies or gather contributions in exchange for favors. It's time to end them. · Nov 13 at 4:56pm
Thanks for the welcome. I get the importance of earmarks--but what does it mean for all of us that apparently Senator Inhofe doesn't?
Jun '10
Re: Earmarks
Lucy Pevensie
~Paules: First, allow me to offer you a cordial greeting. Welcome to our circle. You will find here a gracious and thoughtful membership.
As for earmarks, the issue is financially insignificant, but philosophically important. The practice is corrupt. Earmarks subvert democracy by allowing politicians to buy votes from selected constituencies or gather contributions in exchange for favors. It's time to end them. · Nov 13 at 4:56pm
Thanks for the welcome. I get the importance of earmarks--but what does it mean for all of us that apparently Senator Inhofe doesn't? · Nov 13 at 5:54pm
Allow me to coin a new slur: Ruling Class. Hissssssss!
Nov '10
Re: Earmarks
~Paules: First, allow me to offer you a cordial greeting. Welcome to our circle. You will find here a gracious and thoughtful membership.
As for earmarks, the issue is financially insignificant, but philosophically important. The practice is corrupt. Earmarks subvert democracy by allowing politicians to buy votes from selected constituencies or gather contributions in exchange for favors. It's time to end them. · Nov 13 at 4:56pm
EXACTLY. Dead on. I'm a fairly nonviolent person, but I intend to dope smack the next person who tells me that eliminating earmarks "won't make a dent" in the debt. Um, Ethics 101?
Aug '10
Re: Earmarks
As far as I know, it's true that eliminating earmarks won't directly reduce spending, because earmarks merely direct the spending of money that's already been appropriated, rather than leaving it to the executive branch's discretion.
But what I have no way of knowing is whether the existence of earmarks, and their commonplace use, has influenced the culture of Congress, making legislators more willing to appropriate money in the first place, knowing that they'll have a shot at steering it their way in the subsequent earmark process. Does anyone else around here have any insight into this?
May '10
Re: Earmarks
Welcome aboard, Lucy.
Inhofe writes:
This is a silly argument. If Congress didn't approve the funding, Obama couldn't dole it out.
Inhofe complains about executive distribution of funds, but the legislature (along with the judiciary) defines the limits of executive power. The "stimulus" bills were wrong when they were passed, not only when the money was distributed.
He goes on to mention good things (like improved body armor for soldiers) achieved through earmarks. The issue is not elimination of funding for any particular types of expenditures. Conservatives do want cuts in several areas, but that's a separate issue. The issue is the method by which bills are passed. They should be passed or denied on their own merits, rather than due to trades that help politicians buy votes and retain power.
Nov '10
Re: Earmarks
Aaron Miller,
I wonder if you could flesh out what you mean by "passed or denied on their own merits." I am pretty sure that I know what you mean, but the idea, as expressed by you, seems a bit vague.
In theory, I am all for banning earmarks, since they do seem to represent a kind of "soft corruption." I confess, however, to being at a loss to imagine what sorts of practical mechanisms might be put in place to prevent such abuses of the legislative process.
I can imagine a thousand ways that a member of Congress might circumvent any strictures placed upon them, regarding earmarks. Politicians, in every democracy or republic that I am aware of, have ALWAYS bought votes-- either directly or indirectly. And most politicians want to retain power. We are talking about human nature here-- and most human beings rather enjoy being in possession of as much power as they can accumulate.
I cannot conceive of any procedural reforms that are going to be substantially effective, in terms of reforming the foundational character of people who enter politics. How do we specifically make a "ban on earmarks" more than just token window-dressing?
Oct '10
Re: Earmarks
How Republican controlled House deals with the earmark issue will be an early indication of how serious they are when it comes to financial responsiblity and reform.
The political class just adores earmarks. Even Ron Paul engages in this practice. Don't expect the political class to give them up without a fight.
May '10
Re: Earmarks
Politicians will always negotiate by offering A to receive B. But such bargains should involve issues of national impact, rather than local programs which are properly the concern of local governments. If Congressmen are going to trade, let them offer to prolong this national tax to eliminate that one, or eliminate this national program while transferring so much of its funds to another national program.
Allowing Congressional politicians to concern themselves with local governance feeds the centralization of all government in D.C.
Raconteur, my comment was indeed vague, and I admit that I'm engaging in wishful thinking. It would be great if each bill regarded only one issue, but I don't see how that could happen. Even if it was politically feasible, a law that mandated "one bill, one issue" would necessarily leave open to interpretation whether particular subjects are related enough to be considered one issue.
But is the way the federalization of student loans was packaged into the healthcare bill acceptable? Are there any limits to how many or how grossly different issues can be combined into one law? Are such examples evidence of corruption or just unavoidable compromise?
Edited on Nov 14, 2010 at 12:03pmMay '10
Re: Earmarks
I too wish to welcome you. Second ear marks are a speck on a flys butt, the flys butt being the overall budget, but it's important symbolically. It tells the American people that we will no longer be spending your money willy nilly, plus without earmarks healthcare wouldn't have passed. Also who is NRO to declare Inhoffe the most consevative Senator, for my money Jim D. of SC is.
May '10
Re: Earmarks
I feel very strongly both ways; tastes lousy, and is also more filling (Billy Martin). I've lobbied a few Senators and Congresspeople myself;I agree that the financial impact is small and the corruption of the process by swapping favors and encouraging bacon-fetching is meaningful.
I think this is the wrong way to approach the battle; water flows and finds the leaky places no matter how much caulk you put in place.
In the 1980's, it was relatively easy to visit a staff person in the Pentagon. Then Operation Ill-Wind occurred, and they tightened everything up- the upshot of it was that the influence-peddling process (regardless of motives) was all driven underground. DoD was still being lobbied, but by retired military guys "checking on their 201 file" at the personnel office and stopping by to see a few of the guys while they were there, or meeting at at one of those luncheon forum/seminars put on by AUSA, etc.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Direct reforms toward the real issue- openness. No earmarks that are not identified to a Member, all published on-line, with rationale, at least a week before any votes.
Jun '10
Re: Earmarks
I am with you Duane in feeling strongly both ways. I don't want earmarks to be used as the currency of corruption but I know that driving the appropriations into the bureaucracy is going to make the process more corrupt (permanent mandarins of the ruling class,revolving door bureaucrats etc). Does anyone understand the arcana of the appropriations process well enough to tell me why a special supplemental with 20 or 2,000 line-items could not each be subject to a recorded vote?
Oyez, oyez, Special Supplemental item number 1645, Members will record their votes by electronic device,
Senator Hillary was willing to stick money in for a Woodstock Museum, but who else would have joined their name to hers?.
(BTW She was there. I have a picture of her, muddy and nude, dancing with a flower in her hair while Jimi Hendrix plays the Star-Spangled Banner, but I am saving it for her 2016 run)
EJ: Don't even think about it!
Edited on Nov 15, 2010 at 12:08amRe: Earmarks
In certain, limited circumstances, I'm actually in favor of earmarks. Why? Because these days so much of the implementation of legislation is left to the federal bureaucracy, which a) is staffed by civil servants, many of whom are hostile to Republicans, and, b) in any event reports ultimately to the president, his staff, and his cabinet, all of whom are most decidedly hostile to Republicans. Earmarks thus represent a tool--perhaps an indispensable tool--for Republicans in Congress to use in facing the hostile federal apparatus. An earmark says to the bureaucrats and administration, You will spend money in my state, and my district, and you will spend it on this specific project, instead of attempting to punish me by spending money only on projects you and your Democratic allies might favor.
That said, there's no question that earmarks have in recent years exploded. During the Reagan years, my economist friend John Cogan recently noted, even the principal appropriations bills seldom received more than a dozen or so earmarks each. Now? That number has soared into the hundreds. There is no doubt--none--that during the Bush administration Republicans began using earmarks to lard on the pork.
Re: Earmarks
So? So I'm in favor of Duane's approach. Don't ban earmarks. But do subject them to complete transparency, tying each earmark to the member or members who proposed it, requiring them to explain why, and giving the public a week or ten days to study the matter, raising the alarum if the earmark represents mere pork.
There. Got it all down.
Welcome, Lucy. And see? Starting a conversation among the Ricochetoise is easy-peesy.
Jul '10
Re: Earmarks
Welcome aboard Lucy. You've already surpassed many many posts at NRO in comments.
Are "earmarks" Constitutional? That's the question. I know most legislation ain't.
Re: Earmarks
On this issue, one might wish to compare with Jim Inhofe's argument the comments made by his fellow Oklahoman in the Senate Tom Coburn.
Nov '10
Re: Earmarks
Welcome Queen Lucy. I, too, am a great fan of Narnia and of Dr. Lewis, to whose writings I owe much.
About earmarks: I think that much of their evil results from the procedures of Congress, both houses, in fact. Here in Alabama, we have a provision in our much maligned State Constitution that requires that
* * * Each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes; and no law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred, by reference to its title only; but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended, or conferred, shall be re-enacted and published at length. [Emphasis supplied.]
If the houses of Congress had rules providing the same thing, then bills submitted would have to let the members of Congress and the rest of us know what was contemplated from the outset and would prevent from occurring legislative fraud of the sort commonly practiced in the U. S. Capitol . Once put into the legislative process, a bill could not be twisted into a caricature of the original.
May '10
Re: Earmarks
While I understand the arguments for, the practice has been so totally corrupted that I feel it must cease. Several years ago the Army Corps of Engineers asked for $5Billion for repairs and maintenance to the nations waterways. The end result was a $25Billion pork infested bill. Obama's first bill for signature was a huge increase in discretionary spending for the second fiscal half federal expenditure, complete with over 8,000 ear marks.
Arguing for continuance of the practice requires trust. This no longer exists - at least with me. To say that it has no impact on the federal spend is, I believe, absurd.
May '10
Re: Earmarks
Steve, who argued "for continuance of the practice"?
I did argue that we are kidding ourselves if we think that the cosmetic ban is going to stop such nonsense. That's why visibility is the most important factor.