This is why I’m confused about the earmarks. Does this empower the executive branch even more? I totally like the idea of no earmarks but worry about that part.
To answer your question, no. Congress holds the checkbook and with a new Sherrif in town come January, I expect them to choke off his ability to do so because the blank checks of the 111th congress will be gone. He can order all he wants to but Congress can starve anything he does by defunding any attempts. There is also a means of killing EO’s in the Congress as well. I would suspect that shortly after the swearing in ceremony’s that a few party flippers will be happening. Faced with a Congress willing to take on Obama in the public arena, you will even see enough Democrats willing to go along on a veto over ride or at least threaten to do so. Several of them came very close to losing their seats as well.
On the topic at large, geez, whoda thunk it that this would be coming from Podesta?/sarc Wasn’t it right before and after the election that one of Soro’s groups started making these noises?
No need for confusion on earmarks. They are a symbol of what’s wrong about Washington and our political corruption. In an of themselves the earmark like any other tool can be good or bad— but they have been abused. and the only way to cure the abuse is to seek promise to end earmarks. What bothers me is it seems the political game that this position may be a compromise that will bite us in the behind-for what will they NOT hear us on down the road when the Republicans have the House?I like what Alan West said about his going to Washington-to fix what is broken -then come home.
“Does this empower the executive branch even more?”
Yep - which is why Inhofe (who is further from being a RINO than Reagan was) supported them. But it still doesn’t matter, and he even gets it now, for we can thank Senator McCain and ESPECIALLY Senator Stevens for distorting what earmarks are...to the point of making them more poisonous than trying to fix SocSecurity.