Just Say No to Earmarks

opinionjournal.com (WSJ) ^ | February 10, 2006 | TOM COBURN

[neverdem]

In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it contained 121 earmarks.

Thank you, doctor!

[Clump]

Coburn is the man. I guess McCain thinks we will like him more if he hangs around a right wing hero. I am proud to have worked on Coburn's campaign. He will make a difference.

[Txsleuth]

The difference is...McCain has been griping about pork for years...but then still votes for the bills...

I dare say it will be Coburn that gets it done...with MCCain trying to take the credit.

[yellowdoghunter]

Dr. Coburn is wonderful and true to his word. I can't wait for him to tie the Senate up in knots over spending. If Bill Frist has a problem with it, it might be time for him to go.

I don't always agree with Mr. McCain but he has always done what he could to fight against pork.

[A.Hun]

Earmarks or not, discretionary spending is just about where it has been since the '60s (as a percentage of GDP).

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

[RightWhale]

Earmarks count for nothing. The issue is internal improvements, which remains where it was in 1787.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

In 1991, the highway bill had 538 earmarks (i.e. funding for specific projects in specific districts that Congress critters can take back to their home districts to claim they are getting their fair share of pork) while last year's had over 6000.

Senator Coburn and Rep. Mike Pence are the true inheritors of the Reagan revolution. The rest of the pack are just a bunch of pretenders.

[manwiththehands]

I'm skeptical and cynical. This is an election year. And McCain and Bush are NOT conservatives. We'll get a pittance and token legislation.

[kjo]

Yes, I have posted this before and I'll probably post it again: The GOP MUST understand, if they nominate McCain in '08 million of conservatives will stay home or vote Libertarian.

Maybe they don't care. Maybe they think they'll get enough Democrat votes to win. Maybe. But I wouln't count on it.

[MowersFromNJ]

McCain-Coburn 08!

[neverdem]

Earmarks or not, discretionary spending is just about where it has been since the '60s (as a percentage of GDP).

That's too much. We have at least $7 trillion in debt, unfunded mandates out the wazoo, social security and medicare staring into the abyss.

[neverdem]

Earmarks count for nothing. The issue is internal improvements, which remains where it was in 1787.

You lost me.

[A.Hun]

Did you bother checking the Congressional Budget Historical Data report?

However you feel about the spending and deficit, it is nothing out of the ordinary.

That is just a fact.

[RightWhale]

There is nothing new here. This debate has been going on since the new Constitution, and reached a peak of discord about 1830.

[monkeywrench]

"Congress's "earmark favor factory." The battle against pork is crucial. Pork is the root cause of the unholy relationship between some members of Congress, lobbyists and donors. Inside Congress, the pork process is effectively a black market economy..."

I think this was more their point.

[truth_seeker]

"The GOP MUST understand, if they nominate McCain in '08 million of conservatives will stay home or vote Libertarian."

Which branch of the Libertarian Party do you like?

--Harry Browne "blame America for 9/11/2001 branch?
--Drugs for everybody branch?
--Open borders branch?
--Pro-abortion branch?
--Pro-homosexuality branch?

Just to name a few of the major Libertarian planks.

[T.L.Sink]

Yes, I agree with you and don't agree with all his positions but he has a long record of fiscal conservatism and opposition to waste and pork. Bush could learn alot from him in that regard. He's also been a courageous supporter of the war on terrorism and the forces in Iraq. Whatever one's view of his positions he doesn't decide them after reading the latest polls.

[A.Hun]

They overlying argument is that spending is out of control, with pork as the driving force.

Just pointing out that spending is not out of control. As a %GDP (the only honest way to measure spending) spending is right in the middle of the historical range.

[frannie]

Not realy. If you go back to 1936, we were not at war, Hitler had not yet invaded any country, BUT it was FDR's first reelection. Our DEFICIT was greater than our receipts. Not our spending was greater that our receipts, but our DEFICIT.

Receipts- 3,923,000,000
Outlays [expenditures]- $8,228,000,000
Deficit -$4,304,000,000

To have a deficit today we would have a deficit of much more that l,000,000,000,000 - can't really figure that high.

I have been trying to get someone to comment on this for years. Remember, we were in a depression and I believe unemployment had gone up the first four years of FDR's term, this can be checked.