Skip to comments.Senate Republicans Split on Earmark Ban
Posted on 11/14/2010 4:10:27 AM PST by Kaslin
Have they learned nothing from the last two elections?
What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion?
When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! Are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.
But when the legislator is finally elected ah! Then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: the people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation. Frederic Bastiat, The Law, pages 60-61
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his “Old Bull” allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.
Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe called an earmark ban a phony issue. He added: The ban doesnt accomplish anything.
Wrong, Mr. Inhofe.
What it accomplishes is:
The American people wanted you to begin dismantling a bloated, corrupt federal government where only the rich and powerful derive any benefit, not to lecture us from your ivory tower about how ignorant we are about your job description.
Lets turn this around and ask the question from another perspective. If you cant accomplish something so allegedly insignificant as cleaning up the federal budget a bit by banning earmarks, how can we trust you will do the right thing when political pressures demand you do heavy lifting on something major?
While some in the GOP insist on maintaining a party full of Old Bull, they incessantly repeat history in a manner that bodes ill for Americas future.
Last January, Republicans as the minority party voted en masse against raising the debt ceiling. One day after the election:
U.S. House Speaker-apparent John Boehner pledged the new House majority would listen to the voters who swept the Republicans into power.
But now, in true Bastiat form, Republicans plan to increase the federal debt ceiling to cover this years $1.5 trillion deficit. They did this without first preparing a plan to streamline a bloated government, not even by banning earmarks.
McConnell and Inhofe need a brief history lesson.
The 2008 elections were a mandate against business as usual under the GOP and Bush. CNN exit polls showed that only 28% thought Bush was doing a good job, and 48% thought McCain — as leader of the Republican Party by nature of his presidential candidacy — would continue Bushs policies.
This was one crucial nail in the GOPs coffin that year.
In 2010, voters didnt vote so much in favor of the Republican Party as against Obamas agenda. Politico notes: Following their midterm rout of Democrats, Republicans are welcoming a big crop of freshmen who criticized earmarks on the campaign trail … .
Even the BBC admitted that Republicans campaigned with the promise to halt Obamas agenda. The results are historical fact that their promise played well among the electorate.
McConnell and Inhofe should take this reality to heart, before they set dynamics in motion that return America to 2008.
Of course, Obama is in favor of getting rid of earmarks. It gives the executives more control over where federal money is spent.
‘Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.’ - Abraham Lincoln
Well, vote him out in 2014, when he is up for reelection. Twenty years is long enough
If this was such a phony issue, then why do they want to keep it?
While I’d love to see earmarks as currently used abolished and banned, I’ve often toyed with the idea that the NEA should be replaced with a system of arts-funding through earmarks: get rid of the NEA, take the amount it hands out in grants and divide it by 1070 (we still save the bureaucrats’ salaries and benefits, cost of office space and the like), give each congressman and senator two of those shares, one of which has to fund art in his or her district or state, and one of which has to fund the arts outside of his or her state.
It would make arts funding into a serious political issue. Some nitwit funds Maplethorpe or his ilk with his share, if he’s not the congressman whose district includes the Castro, there goes his reelection chances!
It would be fun. It would get art people want to see funded. Though seriously, just abolishing the NEA period would be fine, too.
...for those interested. :D
We have met the enemy...and they is us.....POGO comic strip.
Thirty Years...he was first elected in '84, he "skunked" Dee Huddleson.(sp?)
with a Pack of Hunting Hounds, It seems Dee forgot about
whom he was representing in Washington D.C.
MUCH LIKE (Washington Insider) MITCH IS DOING NOW!
They play so many convoluted games up there that no normal person could understand it. (They think of normal people as unsophisticated and unwashed.)
you pretty much nailed it...the money isnt as much of an issue as the ‘payback’ [though when the checking account is empty, every dollar counts]...that and wholesale selling out o the countrys economy by billions, for a couple hundred grand for a community center to buy votes back home...
Earmarks (pork) have always been bad, especially in the case of Ted Stevens, but John McCain has never earmarked anything. I loath McCain, but I have to give the devil his due on that one.
We have four more years to notch McConnell, Skink, but as you know, he has a permanent place on my $hit list (amnesty). Even Hal Rogers came out against earmarks the other day, but I don’t believe him for a minute. If either one thinks TEA parties are going anywhere in two or four years, they have another think coming.
“Earmarks (pork) have always been bad, especially in the case of Ted Stevens, but John McCain has never earmarked anything. I loath McCain, but I have to give the devil his due on that one.”
Always is a strong word - but regardless, it is the operative word today. Sen. Inhofe, and all other Republicans, may want to make a case for earmarks - and they’re welcome to do it - but, please, NOT THIS SESSION. At least wait until 2013, and then only under VERY STRICT rules, if at all.
26 years to be exact
The rest of us are tired of paying for the bacon...
Freepers here on the forum are way to quick to call others RINOs, without really knowing what a RINO is. And just to explain a RINO is someone who votes most of the time with the rats, not occasionally, like when it is a no partisan vote
You are SOOOOOOO right. When people start calling Inhofe a RINO, then I know they’re trolls - or they are so misinformed as to be laughable. Graham yes, Snowe yes, lots of others in the middle (i.e., ACU ~90), Inhofe - no friggen way.