Posted on 11/09/2010 1:12:01 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB
When the Nov. 2 general election is over and the lame duck session of Congress begins, Inhofe said he plans to take up the cause of earmarks again. Inhofe said he is listed as the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate by a number of conservative journals and will try to reinstitute the practice of earmarks. He said earmarks should be germane to the legislation they are attached to.
“It would be nothing short of criminal to go to all the trouble of electing great new anti-establishment senators, only to have them cede to the executive branch their constitutional power and obligation, which is exactly what a moratorium on earmarks would do,” Inhofe said in a prepared remark.
(Excerpt) Read more at enidnews.com ...
That’s exactly right. While the use of earmarks has been abused by both parties, I would submit that there are projects/items/programs that are very worthwhile that are currently funded through the earmarking process.
We’re looking at hopefully only 2 more years of this president. Well worth the sacrifice to take those ear marks away from Congress.
Looks like all the entrenched politicians are going to scream like crazy about this.
“Earmark is where congressman get to pick where the money go to
Without the earmark, the executive branch aka Obama gets to decide where the money go to”
That is what Krauthammer said last night. Kraut said that earmarks do not increase spending.
““It would be nothing short of criminal to go to all the trouble of electing great new anti-establishment senators, only to have them cede to the executive branch their constitutional power and obligation, which is exactly what a moratorium on earmarks would do,” Inhofe said in a prepared remark.
Operation RINO Kill (politically speaking, of course) missed this target, so now we must endure the consequence.
Sen. Inhofe is a double-talking corrupt Beltway RINO who will obstruct conservative efforts to reign in spending for the next 6 years.
And who is on these committees and how do you ensure they cannot be bought off like or by a legislator? Honest question.
“Earmark is where congressman get to pick where the money go to Without the earmark, the executive branch aka Obama gets to decide where the money go to”
Yes. It is about Obama! That’ll trick the idiot Tea Partiers!
Did Karl Rove think this one up? Sounds like him.
He is not a RINO. He is a thief who is bankrupting our children.
He and all his ilk need to be removed ASAP.
Like hell you say. Read the constitution! The congress should introduce CONSTITUTIONAL spending bills ONLY!! No pet projects for congressmen, senators, states and or local governments. NO PORK!!
Remember this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2576806/posts
Inhofe attacking McLame over earmarks.
“That is what Krauthammer said last night. Kraut said that earmarks do not increase spending.”
Krauhammer is an idiot. Maybe he’ll get a $10,000 bonus as a “speakers fee” from Club for Growth for that B.S.
An earmark is a way to avoid scrutiny for projects from the normal committee review procedure.
And the president’s job is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Sorry, he does not set the agenda and he does not control the purse strings. That’s the job of We the People through our elected representatives!!
I want to hear Inohofe’s version of events before I believe the news. What is ENID news anyway?
People seem to be overlooking that fact that earmarks are made up of money stolen from taxpayers.
What better way of keeping dependant states, dependant. Why worry about fiscal responsibility when uncle Sam has a pocket full of crack?
Except that earmarks come from a designated fund - for earmarks. Get rid of the fund and neither Congress nor the POTUS can spend the money.
“And who is on these committees and how do you ensure they cannot be bought off like or by a legislator? Honest question.”
Yes, they are corrupt, but earmark procedure is even more corrupt. Put it this way, if you can’t get other congressmen to sign off on the deal by a review process, the project is more than averagely bad.
Krauthammer is leaving out the concept of logrolling, to which earmarking it critical (buying support for legislation it otherwise would not garner).
I’m not disagreeing with you per se, just trying to understand this.
I think we would agree that defense spending is constitutional. So, how is that money to be spent in such a way that it’s allocation wouldn’t fit your definition of distributing pork?
There does seem to be some technical truth in what Inhofe is saying, at least if Wikipedia is correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)#Defense_of_Earmarks) , which is not always a sure thing. I remain skeptical, however, that Congress, even the much improved Congress coming in next session, can be trusted to use earmarks responsibly. It’s just too easy to tack on funds for this little pet project or that.
Also, I think earmarks are but one symptom of a much larger problem. At this point, real deficit reduction is going to require saying “No” to a lot of spending programs, earmarked or otherwise. That includes making hard choices in the biggies like Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending.
Fair point. However, it just seems that whatever party in power will have the power to influence where that money is spent in their party’s states and districts, and a committee just seems like it would just serve as an intermediary for additional backroom deals and spending corruption.
I’m just saying I’m not sure there’s a perfect answer. It sounds good to say ending pork and earmarks, but the goal is to mitigate corruption. I just want to make sure we don’t make things worse by doing something that “feels good”.
Sorry, but your analysis is not right. Earmarks merely force monies to be spent on specific projects that a particular congress person wants. They are a perversion of the budgetary process used to reward cronies and donors. As stated above, all expenditures should be spelled out in the budget document within the baseline budget. If the congress wants specific work done, say so in the budget and force the congress to vote on its inclusion. The more specific the budget can be, the less the administrators will have leeway to mess with it and reward Obama cronies.
In my opinion, ALL government awards should be competitive except where very special circumstances exist, and then those circumstances need to be spelled out and assessed by non-biased parties.
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.