Posted on 11/17/2016 11:27:04 AM PST by nickcarraway
Florida Rep. Tom Rooney wants to bring earmarks back to Washington – sort of – but House Speaker Paul Ryan has put up an obstacle named Donald Trump.
The Republican has offered a proposal that would allow lawmakers to designate money for water projects under the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.
“When I go home to my county commissioners, they say ‘Can you shore up the dike around Lake Okeechobee?’ I’m like, ‘no.’ I can write a letter and hope that they listen to me. Which, over at the Army Corps, they probably look at that letter and put it in the shredder. They don’t give a rat’s ass what I think,” Rooney told reporters on Wednesday.
“When I got elected, we could do this. Now we can’t.”
Rooney’s proposal is echoed by other lawmakers who feel congress have given up too much authority to the executive branch. The earmark ban has been in place since Republicans took the House in 2010.
But during a GOP conference meeting yesterday, Ryan shut down such talk, reminding the group that Trump has promised to “drain the swamp” and it would send a poor signal. Ryan, however, said earmarks could be reconsidered next year.
"We all supported the earmark ban in 2011 and still support it now," read a statement to the Times from Rooney's office.
"What we don’t support is the unintended consequence of giving unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies in Washington, DC a blank check and letting them decide whether or not to fund the economically-important dam safety, water quality, flood control, harbor maintenance and ecosystem restoration projects in our districts. There are several authorized Army Corps and Reclamation sites and projects that deserve more funding and attention than the Executive Branch has provided to date. This amendment will allow Members to request funding to shore up levees in Louisiana and Texas, to speed up flood control projects in Florida or to expedite drought response projects in California. Under our proposal, Members will be able to immediately – and in a manner that’s fully open to the public – take their unique knowledge and understanding of their hometowns and put it to use, all without increasing annual spending by a cent.
"We want to be very clear: We are not proposing a complete repeal of the earmark moratorium, nor are we advocating for increased spending or a return to the corrupt practice of earmarking funds for special interests. We know the American people are fed up with Congress and they’re sick of hearing the same inside-the-beltway excuses for inaction. Our constituents experience the consequences of the federal government’s missteps, delays and funding shortfalls and it is not only rewarding when we’re able to successfully intervene on their behalf, it is our Constitutional duty to do so responsibly and transparently. Today, you either you vote to continue the broken status quo, or to take back the reigns of control our Founding Fathers intended in Article I of the Constitution and exercise your power of the purse transparently and responsibly."
The Army Corps of Engineers has a budget. Talk to them.
“What we don’t support is the unintended consequence of giving unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies in Washington, DC a blank check and letting them decide whether or not to fund the economically-important dam safety, water quality, flood control, harbor maintenance and ecosystem restoration projects in our districts.”
Sounds reasonable.
Donald doesn’t have an easy situation, but again now neither do these representatives, who used to be able to run on pork.
d that you gouht when Mom grabbed you by the Ear and Y-A-N-K-E-D HArd when you were naughty?
The other side of this picture is pork barreling.
Donald is the Ideas Guy. He may be able to come up with a new way of addressing such issues. He will be wise to do so, being caught between the Scylla of this situation and the Charybdis of pork barreling.
One of the first big Constitutional battles was over "internal improvements". The question was: Does the Constitution allow the federal government to "improve" things? Can the feds build roads, bridges, canals, etc? or is that up to the States?
I maintain that they got it wrong: There is no Constitutional duty for Congress to build stuff for the folks back home. But perhaps block grants to the States would be allowed so that the State can intervene on behalf of the citizens. But block grants are not earmarks for cronies.
It needs to be asked, why can’t this kind of activity be kept near states to begin with? Slash the Federal taxes till Uncle Sam can almost fit into a phone booth. Let states do whatever with their local taxes that they want.
Very reasonable. So don’t write vague over reaching laws and then delegate the whole mess to the executive branch. If you wish to regain control there is way do that with out engaging in Pork Barrel Spending. It is called legislation.
BTW. Where I live we fund and pay for our own flood control levy and dams. Id there some reason Rooney’s people cannot do like wise?
Which would mean laws stating that “the Feds will build this, this, this...” but what is the difference between that and earmarking?
I think as Donald looks at this, the idea of states rising in importance, and the Feds falling in importance, will progress.
And somewhere, Davey Crockett is looking down on this and smiling.
“He will be wise to do so, being caught between the Scylla of this situation and the Charybdis of pork barreling.”
Wow, you went full educated on us.
I hope he knows how to handle this, because I can’t think of anything that unelected bureaucrats do well.
Instead of full redneck huh.
How about educated redneck?
“Where I live we fund and pay for our own flood control levy and dams. Is there some reason Rooney’s people cannot do likewise?”
I don’t know. Economic duress?
I agree with that.
I will, however, also make the observation (more true 100 years ago than today) that a very developed state (like NY) can tax its citizens and build airports and highways and bridges — and that state can get better and better and better.
Meanwhile, a less developed state (perhaps W VA) is not able to tax its citizens very much and therefore has a tough time building improvements to become more developed.
Some federal money might help various parts of the country improve faster than they would on their own. But the main point about the Constitution (IMO) does override this observation — fact is, the states are alone in their responsibility for improving themselves. There is no justice in taxing people in 50 states in order to build a tunnel in MA.
“The Army Corps of Engineers has a budget. Talk to them.”
Trump should put The Army Corps of Engineers out of business! They have become just an arm of the EPA. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area they go around designating man-made livestock ponds as “wetlands,” and if the creek behind your home that only has water in it during the winter, connects by any circuitous way to SF Bay, they consider it a “navigable waterway” subject to their jurisdiction. The funny thing is, we’ve never ever even seen a Coast Guard Cutter anchored out in ours at any time of the year!
Everybody makes fun of a redneck...till their car breaks down.
Another advantage is that people will always bet that you don’t know where a particular passage in Shakespeare is located.
“Act 5 scene 5? No way you know that. Fifty bucks says you’re talking through your hat.”
“There is no justice in taxing people in 50 states in order to build a tunnel in MA.”
A “tunnel” that ended up costing all of us more than $20 billion dollars for those worthless a$$holes in Boston!
In the end...I got our project approved....and the boss said I couldn't do it!! Always tickled me.
Florida should pay for it.
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.