Democrats Swim Against Anti-Earmark Tide

November 17, 2010 RSS Feed Print

WASHINGTON — Now that Republicans have abandoned the you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours earmark process, Democrats who still hold a majority in the Senate have to decide whether they'll try to prop up a system that seems to be collapsing all around them.

With the incoming House GOP majority dead set against earmarks and President Barack Obama urging a crackdown, defenders of earmarks — mostly Democrats but with a few Republicans mixed in — are swimming against a powerful tide.

Earmarking allows lawmakers to steer federal spending to pet projects in their states and districts. Earmarks take many forms. They can be road projects, improvements to home district military bases, sewer projects, economic development projects and even those Predator drone aircraft that are used to kill terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They can also include tax breaks for a handful of specific companies, like a tax cut proposed years ago for manufacturers of hunting arrows.

[Read more about the deficit and national debt.]

The reason Capitol Hill's favor factory has churned out so many pork-barrel projects so successfully for so long is pretty simple: Everybody did it, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.

Not anymore.

Critics like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, have railed against earmarks for years, even as they proliferated when Republicans controlled Congress. Slowly, the tide has turned in their favor.

Boehner promises that next year's spending bills won't have earmarks. The opinion of House Democrats doesn't matter much since they'll be stripped of most of their power under a Boehner-led regime.

But it was Monday's surprise announcement by Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky in support of a two-year moratorium on earmarks that fundamentally shifted the paradigm. Until then, McConnell had been a strong defender of the practice. Banning earmarks wouldn't save money and would shift too much power to Obama, McConnell said in the days after the midterm congressional elections.

Despite deep misgivings among many old-timers, Republican senators followed McConnell's lead and endorsed a nonbinding moratorium on earmarks Tuesday evening by a voice vote in a closed meeting.

Earmark critics want to go further and are demanding a vote by the entire Senate to ban them for three years.

The move by the Senate GOP leaves Senate Democrats as the only faction of Congress in a position to try to save the practice — and their position doesn't seem very strong, since it's difficult to see how Boehner and McConnell would allow any earmark-laden bills to pass.

[See a slide show of the GOP's 5 Rising Stars.]

Thus far, however, some Senate Democrats seem to be in denial.

"I have an obligation to the people of Nevada to do what is important to Nevada, not what is important to some bureaucrat down here (in Washington) with green eyeshades," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. "So I am not going, personally, going to back off of bringing stuff back to Nevada."

Once limited to the most senior and powerful lawmakers, earmarking pet projects and grants mushroomed after Republicans took over Congress in 1995.

Then, GOP leaders like House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia and Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas saw earmarks as a way to help endangered Republicans keep their seats and to reward lawmakers loyal to GOP leaders. Boehner, by contrast, has never sought an earmark.

Tags:
James Inhofe,
Lisa Murkowski,
Mitch McConnell,
Harry Reid,
Lindsey Graham,
2010 election,
deficit and national debt,
John Boehner,
Congress,
democratic party,
John McCain,
Associated Press,
national security terrorism and the military,
republican party

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Any federal money for an individual state is absolutely wrong. Let's suppose there are 3 states:

state 1 want $ for roads

state 2 wants money for schools

state 3 wants money for healthcare

the feds decide that they will "earmark" 100.00 to each state for these pet projects. Therefore:

state 1 gets nothing for schools and healthcare

state 2 gets nothing for roads and healthcare

state 3 gets nothing for roads and schools.

Everyone gains a little and loses a lot.

No individual state should get special money. The federal government should never hand out money unless it is going to benefit a majority of Americans across all state lines. It is almost sinful that my state gets 100 million dollars for something but my neighbor in the next state over gets none of this boondoggle. Get my drift?

DrJoel1 of OH 11:37PM November 19, 2010

It is amazing how few people have common sense. If you're going deeper into debt, quit spending so much. It's just that simple - except of course when you're already umpteen trillion dollars in debt and no amount of taxation is going to pull us out.

My community and state take care of Education - let's cut the US DOE.

My state has a Department of Agriculture - let's cut the USDA

My state has a Department of Natural Resources - let's cut the EPA.

My state has a Department of Transportation - let's get rid of the US DOT.

Obviously, this is not a short term fix, but we need to start shrinking the Federal government and sending government back where it belongs - close to the voters.

But hey, the idea of adding a U.S. Dept. of Youth is positively brilliant.

Jim of MI 6:06PM November 18, 2010

It is beyond my understaning why the White House does not respond to a suggetion considered "brilliant" by most? Could it be that President Obama doesn't know about it yet, when we tried every means of straight communication - registered mail, e-mails, copis to Michelle, his team, etc. - to get to him since even before his election?

I refer, of course, to the suggestion to create an independent U.S.DEPT.OF YOUTH or Youth & Sports even by Executive Order! Even poor countries have it. It's not only good for the Country, but revitalize the Youth's political participation rather than defection, let alone boost President Obama's voting base, given that it is the Youth that put him there!!!

Could it be that those surrounding him have other agendas? Had this endeavor been set in place before the mid-elections, I doubt that the Republicans would have won. And I'm not the only one to think so. What is happening to the beautiful American Dream? We thought that American Politicians would be less selfish than in oher countries. Thanks God the War on Ignorance is florishing but too slow for today's era.

Do we really need the mass taking over the streets again in order to accomplish the notion that Humanity prevails? Haven't we shed enough blood already while also desappointing and even alienating the rest of the world? No wonder that votes are being bought based on mispercepion of what a Social-Democracy does! namely, keeping in control the greedy Capitalism feeding milking the people to the tilt! What happened if nobody will buy anymore the mass-produced goods, let's say for a month or even more? An experiment worthwhile consoidering, nevertheless.

Come one people... one cannot repeat blindly "CUT THE TAXES" when by doing this civilizations's infrastructure would succomb! No Police, no Health Programs, not enough schools...no public transportation, etc., and yet demand clean streets, safety protection, good healthcare, etc. Private corporatiion care only to make their money and streamline anything else.

You, We, the poor and middle class included! WAKE UP, PEOPLE, there must be a balance somewhere which did work for awhile quite well. Radicalism and Extremism never served the people's well being.

Ray Arco of CA 1:36PM November 18, 2010

advertisement

Latest Video