WTH? Can someone explain?
RINO!!!!!!!!!!!
“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,”
Unmitigated B.S.
“It would be nothing short of criminal”
Unmitigated drama queen.
Well, the honeymoon is over. I did not know Inhofe was such a bald face liar.
Anyone who dares to call Inhofe a RINO needs to have their head examined. (I’m not saying you’re doing that, Wobbly Bob...)
If Congress wants to spend money for a specific item, let them put it through the budget process and vote on it. Members of Congress should go on record for each individual expenditure they vote for.
Don’t increase revenue through taxes, reduce expenses.
They don’t “get it”.
They are addicted to spending like a crack ho...........
Inhofe has been a great senator, very conservative, but he needs to seriously reexamine his views on this.
Earmarks are sanctioned bribes and have infected congress with corruption.
They are not pure, they will continue to make mistakes, some campaigned as though they were ...
be not fooled.
They are but politicians and some might dare compare them to children. Behaving as sibling rivals might behave for the coveted toy that might be bestowed upon them from their parents.
Understand, we are the parents, and we control the power, we control the word “no,” and we are responsible for reigning in our wayward children.
Earmarks in the hands of Leftist’s be they Democrats, or RINO’s have been abused to the point we mostly understand them as evil.
Inhofe is right. Without the ability to initiate good earmarks, the new Congress will strap themselves, and frustrate the redemption of our government.
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.
““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.
Remember this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2576806/posts
Inhofe attacking McLame over earmarks.
I want to hear Inohofe’s version of events before I believe the news. What is ENID news anyway?
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.
WTH? Inhofe’s record has been VERY conservative. I can only sort of rationalize this in the sense that giving Obama ANY leeway to make ANY decision is a bad thing, but if bringing back earmarks is the price to stop it, I’m not sure it’s worth the price.
“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,”
This is B.S, and intellectually delusional.
“Earmarks” simply assume that each and every legislator has as much power and authority as the entire legislative body, and a right to exercise it. It does that because it denies that the entire body has a right to reject them, on principle. Earmarks work on the principle that by everyone in the legislative body agreeing to not question the right of anyone to THEIR earmarks, they are disenfranchising the obligations of the entire body, and granting the power that ONLY belongs to the entire body, allowing each of the individuals, to use by their sole discretion.
Mr. Inhofe claims that the Senate would be ceding power to the executive, which is a lie. “The Senate”, that is the entire Senate HAS that power. What Mr. Inhofe is actually asking is that the Senate cede the use of its full power to each and every individual Senator, where their mere one vote (earmark) determines a matter of the government’s expenses.
Its nothing other than an old-boys-club atmosphere by which the legislators cede to the themselves the right to single-handedly use the power of the entire body. They get away with it by agreeing to all do it. It needs to be outlawed.
“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.
Okay. Who put the LSD in Inhofe's coffee?
(Is Babs, 'don't call me ma'am', Boxer playing Halloween tricks on Conservative senators.)
“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.
Okay. Who put the LSD in Inhofe's coffee?
(Is Babs, 'don't call me ma'am', Boxer playing Halloween tricks on Conservative senators.)
If Inhofe is a RINO then EVERYONE is a RINO! Why don’t some of you do some reading about this process. Earmarks are not the problem. Earmarks unrelated to the legislation are the problem. Earmarks are a tiny fraction of this bloated government’s over-spending.
“Fixing” the earmark problem, and the impact it has on the defecit and debt, is akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Looks good. Accomplishes very little
If it makes you feel better, you can all call me a RINO. It’s so over-used, at this point, it doesn’t matter. Reagan was a RINO. Lincoln was a RINO. Rush is a RINO. RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO, RINO. RINO. Everyone is a RINO. Kyl is a RINO. Shelby is a RINO, Jeff Sessions is a RINO, Grassley is a RINO, Burr is a RINO, DeMint is a RINO. ALL REPUBLICANS are REBUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY. Woo Hoo! Yeeee hawwww! eeeeeeeeeeooooooowwwwwwwww!!! RINO! RINO! RINO!
Let’s have another 100,000 references to RINO’s. YIPEEEEE!
Fabulous, Senator. How do you propose discouraging their use as bribes?
Just asking, since Obamacare would have died in the Senate without the Cornhusker Kickback, for example.