Posted on 11/17/2016 11:15:28 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
At least not now
I wonder if the return of unified Republican government means we’re going to start re-running all the same arguments we had a decade ago. If Valerie Plame comes out of the woodwork I’m really going to be irritated.
But we’re talking about earmarks again, if only because House Republicans seem to miss the little buggers an awful lot, and maybe they figured now that they have all the power again, it’s time to go back to shoveling piles of federal money into their districts like they did in the good old days. Good for them, that is. Bad for the country.
The country holds a “change election” and elects a candidate who vows to drain the swamp of corruption. The GOP led congress plans their first act after that: bring back earmarks. Good lord how tone deaf can you be? At least Paul Ryan has enough sense left to stop that from happening.
Earmarks served the United States well for over 200 years.
But they’ve been poison since.
Unfortunately, without earmarks we have the Administration doling out the money instead!
There seems no good answer.
Trump should announce he will vetao all bills with earmarks, or that are too big to read.
All bills should be required to be read from the house floor, word for word, before it is voted on.
Tom Cole is a classic RINO piece of crap. Come on Oklahoma, I know you can do better (e.g., Jim Bridenstine).
We saw Paul Ryan’s explanation for “earmarks” this morning. The idea was to reassert Congressional control over spending. Whether or not that is true, now he has declared that they will work to that end in the new Congress. While he deserves watching, he is appearing to get with the program.
There is, but few people ... EVEN ON THIS FORUM ... can stand to hear it:
Restrict government to the powers specifically authorized in the Constitution. Congress (and We the People) should first ask of any proposal: Does the Constitution authorize the Congress to do this? If so, where? What provision in Article I or any of the amendments authorized this?
Failing to find such authorization should result in the immediate rejection of the proposal.
I suspect that this idea to bring earmarks back right after the election was planned before the election on the assumption Hillary would win and Paul Ryan was on board with it. The rest of his coalition was too stupid to call the plan off until Ryan said "whoa guys, this isn't going as we planned. hold your fire!" I also believe if Ryan is toeing the line on fiscal responsibility it's because he is looking over his shoulder at President Trump behind him. Otherwise it would be open season.
History supports your point.
It was after the explosion in federal power of the post-Vietnam era that earmarks became untenable.
I am beginning to think that a lot of stuff that is going on was planned assuming Hillary would win. This internet censorship crap is a case in point.
While Jim Robinson may not think Alex Jones’ Infowars is a credible news source, President-elect Donald J Trump does.
More Popcorn! Need more Popcorn! ;-)
It seems odd that earmarks have gotten such a bad name. I guess I don’t get it. Our form of government dictates that representatives tell their constituents what they plan to support funding-wise. Reason says that if a representative can tell his constituents he plans to support a needed road or bridge or building, that will bring a few jobs to his district and to his constituents, that’s a good thing for that district. And it forces that representative to argue and advocate for his district, to earn his keep in other words.
Like you mentioned, earmarks were just the way the American government worked for the first couple hundred years. If Congress doesn’t earmark, it gives the Executive the right to dole out projects to favored congressmen, etc. The Executive has too much power as it is. The more power that’s taken away from it, the less likely we’ll have another Obama. As things stand now, it appears that all Congress can do is appropriate a big pot of money without earmarks, and then the Executive gets to do all the earmarking. Why? Because he’s incorruptible? Puhleeze.
Why not take away representatives’ ability to make military academy appointments too? That’s essentially an earmark that’s only to be used on constituents and it’s worth tens of thousands of dollars.
In short, I’d rather have congressional earmarks than an all-powerful Executive, no matter who that Executive is. The sooner the Executive is weaned off that power, the better. And also this whole idea against earmarks is an effort to remove districts and states from the legislation equation and do everything at the national level. Also a bad idea. Our states are essentially individual nations united with other individual nations. Blurring that reality can only help reduce state sovereignty and take away an important check and balance against the behemoth federal government.
In the 60’s we were taught this was “log rolling.” Everybody gets what they want for their vote and spending mushrooms out of control. How about real budget hearings? ZBB. Justify it all.
But stopped it only temporarily. He’ll slide it through some night as part of other legislation. Why? Because he’s a two-faced, backstabbing RINO creep; that’s why.
My POS rep, Culberson, was/is a sponsor of this. If there is a good reason for this process, then let us have debate and talk about it. Trying to slither this through in the middle of the night is crap, crap, crap.
My POS rep, Culberson, was/is a sponsor of this. If there is a good reason for this process, then let us have debate and talk about it. Trying to slither this through in the middle of the night is crap, crap, crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.