Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks

NYT ^ | 8/24/07 | RAHM EMANUEL

[ZGuy]

DEMOCRATS made earmark reform a campaign issue in 2006 — and a reality in 2007 — because earmarks were at the heart of corruption scandals in Washington. Democrats never promised to eliminate earmarks.

Putting all earmarks in the same boat, as critics often do, distorts the debate and does a disservice to the public. Not all earmarks are equal.

We pledged to clean up the abuses in the earmark process, and we kept that promise.

Our reforms do not deserve a kick in the pants. To ignore our reforms as if they never occurred and to criticize us for not ending a practice we never pledged to end is disingenuous.

Some members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, eschew earmarks. That is their right. But most members believe it is their prerogative and their duty to channel federal resources to important public purposes.

Earmarks I’ve championed include money for after-school programs, computers for police patrol cars, master teacher training programs and a children’s hospital research facility. I make no apologies for these earmarks, which serve important public purposes. I’m happy to defend them in the well of the House or against attacks from campaign opponents.

I happen to believe that I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue. But to suggest, as some news reports have, that the earmark process under the new Democratic Congress is worse than before is wrong, unsubstantiated and cynical.

In the space of a few months, the new Democratic Congress has taken earmarks out of the shadows. We have preserved Congress’s power of the purse.

Rahm Emanuel, a representative from Illinois, is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

[sinanju]

There’s just no chutzpah like democrat chutzpah.

[rockinqsranch]

Send this as memo to Murtha.

[linn37]

He knows what we need? Boy are we in big trouble.

[BenLurkin]

line

item

veto

[2ndDivisionVet]

“GOP earmarks, bad! Democrat earmarks, good!” Oh, okay, now I get it.

[Doug Loss]

I see...Republican earmarks are an abuse of the process, but Democrat earmarks are the way government is supposed to work. Thanks for clearing that up.

[caisson71]

Yes, yes! Let’s not get rid of earmarks! If we had no earmarks, we couldn’t pay for our votes!!

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I guess seeing that this was written by Rahm Emmanuel and published in the NY Times, it didn't require a BARF ALERT! but it would have been courteous nevertheless.

[DuncanWaring]

Earmarks I’ve championed include money for after-school programs, computers for police patrol cars, master teacher training programs and a children’s hospital research facility.

Any authorization for any of those in the Constitution, which he's sworn to support and defend?

[Constantine XIII]

LOL, at least he’s being open about being a crook.

[Yo-Yo]

Democratic Earmarks good, Republican Earmarks bad. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

</sarc>

[Maelstorm]

“Earmarks I’ve championed include money for after-school programs, computers for police patrol cars, master teacher training programs and a children’s hospital research facility. I make no apologies for these earmarks, which serve important public purposes. I’m happy to defend them in the well of the House or against attacks from campaign opponents.”:

None of those things should be funded by the Federal government. It makes me sick how these self style robin-hoods think.

[A Texan]

All earmarks are equal, but some earmarks are more equal than others.

[Seeking the truth]

Back in the old days on FR, many Freepers thought Rahm Emanuel may have been an agent in the Mossad!

Anyone else remember that?

[Teacher317]

I appreciate his sincerity and his earnestness. I would hope that he would answer just one question:
why should those earmarks be paid by the federal government instead of the state government?
Each of his examples (schools, police, schools, and hospitals) are expressly state concerns, with only the remotest relationship to interstate commerce (the Wickhard v Filburn decision be damned.)

[savedbygrace]

USSC ruled a few years ago (Clinton admin) that’s not a Constitutional power of the President, so it would take an Amendment to do it.

[RoadKingSE]

I just had a Rahm LSHISM (laughed so hard I $hit myself).

[jmaroneps37]

“Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks.....
At least until the GOP gets back in power so we can beat our breasts and wring our hands about them in the ratmedia”

[crazyhorse691]

I think what he is saying is that Rat earmarks are ok because they promote the welfare of the global village while republican earmarks are bad because they are used solely to benefit a small group of greedy capitalists(think Haliburton or Enron). I am sure he is very uncomfortable having to explain the difference to us and a little talk with the newsmedia will prevent any more of those uncomfortable questions.