This might be a good day for the devil to check the infernal regions for icicles, because there is actually something about which I agree with Teabaggers. They don’t like earmarks, while corporate Republicans love them. Democrats are in the middle, having cut the amount spent on earmarks in half, starting in 2007. Now you may ask, what’s important about earmarks, given that they are only about 1% of the budget, when there are more important things at stake. As I see it, anything that ties up Republicans fighting among themselves takes time they could be spending ending trying to end Social Security, end Medicare, end healthcare reform, however paltry and delayed, ship jobs over seas, kill the CFPB, kill the Volker Rule, cut unemployment benefits, cut veterans’ benefits, hold umpteen gazillion hearings, disenfranchise minority voters, promote killing gay Ugandans, establish pseudo-Christian Sharia, start more wars, and transfer wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich.
Legislators backed by the Tea Party want to ban pork-barrel spending in the Senate against the wishes of their old guard Republican colleagues, reports the Wall Street Journal. [Murdoch delinked] South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint yesterday began mobilizing Senate Republicans against the earmark system, which channels federal funds to legislators’ pet projects. House Republicans back the idea, as does President Barack Obama. But the move hasn’t pleased some Republicans who have spent years securing pork to sate their constituents: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has argued both that earmarks represent a trivial proportion of federal spending and that they provide an essential bulwark against executive power. "Every president would like for us to appropriate all the money and send it to them and let them spend it in any way they want to," Mr. McConnell said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press. "The earmark issue is about discretion—about an argument between the executive branch and the legislative branch over how funds should be spent."… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Slate Magazine>
This should be particularly interesting, because Senate Minority Leader “Bought Bitch Mitch” McConnell is the current earmark champion.
Sadly, it will probably be a short fight. Even Rand Paul is showing signs of weakness, saying that he intends to fight for Kentucky’s share of the pork. He’s just a Republican, after all, and his greed is showing.
6 Responses to “What Will We Do About Earmarks?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Earmarks are good for private sector profit. Don’t you worry the money will soon start flowing to them who are fence sitting on earmarks and then they will jump in favor of them. Greed works like that. After all you need two terms to secure full retirement pension and benefits for having served in congress.
Let’s deny pensions to a bunch of Republicans.
That’s because earmarks are the only way they can get re-elected – duh. It’s not about the good of the country, it’s about funding salmon spawning in Alaska, using fishermen to conduct the study. (Sarah, Sarah, is that you?) 😛 “Oh, that must have been put forward by another agency of ours?” You mean you don’t review all the shit you ask for? Nope. Next study up – do bears shit in the woods? 🙄
Earmarks are a great way to pay back major contributors.
The whole point about earmarks is that they are secret. They are conducted behind an opaque screen so that the people do not know who’s getting what. Mitch McConnell is a feckless liar: Earmarks are about indiscretion.
Vig, I thought the Dems passed legislation requiring that they be posted.