Posted on 03/13/2008 8:56:25 PM PDT by SmithL
Even with the backing of all three presidential candidates, Senate old-timers in both parties decisively killed a proposed one-year ban on lawmakers' home-state pet projects.
The 71-29 vote Thursday night against the earmark moratorium came as Congress pressed ahead with a budget plan that would saddle millions of Americans with higher tax bills in three years by allowing some of President Bush's tax cuts to die after he leaves office.
The House passed a $3 trillion federal budget plan that would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government's ledger back into the black by letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled.
The Senate endorsed extending $340 billion of Bush's tax cuts but balked continuing all of them.
All three major presidential candidates interrupted their campaigns to cast votes on the budget plan, which is nonbinding but highlights the difficult choices on taxes and spending facing the next president and Congress.
. . . The practice of inserting "earmarked" spending into legislation is seen as a birthright by lawmakers in both parties — and a right under the power of the purse awarded to Congress by the Founding Fathers.
Earmarks have exploded in number and cost in recent years, accompanied by charges of abuse and public outrage over egregious examples like the proposed "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, which would have cost more than $200 million to serve an island with a population of about 50.
"This may be the last bastion in American where they don't get it. Americans are sick and tired of the way we do business in Washington," McCain told reporters afterward. "As president, I promise the American people ... the first earmarked, pork-barrel bill that comes across my desk, I'll veto it."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Remember what happened to the Roman Senate.
Let the graft begin... FREE money for all.. WOO HAH...
Refresh my memory.
Someone point that "right" out in the US Constitution for me please.
It is a shame that Hillary and Obama are more conservative than many republicans
That clip you quoted is a darned lie. The plan did NOT cut any social spending, only reduced the growth in the budget for those areas. Those handout programs would continue to grow... just not as fast.
Good news. Bolsters McCain’s stance. Hillary And Ears will have problems because they were earmark hogs, McCain won’t because he didn’t use them.
Of course this is a stupid thing to do. But wouldn't that already be the default projection for the budget, since the law has them expiring?
In other words, they aren't bringing the budget "back into" anything, right now the budget projection should show a healthy surplus after the tax cuts expire, and they are spending that surplus.
“Earmarks” == “Pork barrel spending”
it’s not even about the amount of $ but about the power. Pork is the glue to stick together support for even bigger spending bills.
Incumbents with no ideas keep their power just by bringing the pork. Elections need to be won with ideas and not by patronage perks.
can Someone post a list of the 25 “Republican Senators” that LOVE earmarks?
can Someone post a list of the 25 “Republican Senators” that LOVE earmarks?
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
Like it or not, here it is... Courts have supported the Hamiltonian view that “general Welfare” is very broad in scope, and that earmarks are fine and dandy as long as they promote “general Welfare of the United States”. Madison argued for a much more narrow interpretation, but the courts have not supported his argument.
“and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”
and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States as a sovereign government;
is probably how it should have read.
I’m suffering from illness and fatigue, in other words, I’m sick and tired of it for having to give my tax dollars to lowlife freeloaders but I suppose that I’m preaching to the choir here.
and the other half in tax breaks, we’d skyrocket!
McCain is against pork spending. That is one thing that I like about him. The rest of them need to be tied up and thrown on the railroad tracks.
This post (<-click), while addressing a tax related thread, explains why the 71 Senators that rejected the curb on pork-barrel spending are scandalously ignoring their oaths to defend the Constitution.
How can the free press protect us from a federal government that is operating outside the restraints of the federal Constitution, particularly where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending is concerned, if the press is as ignorant of the Constitution and its history as the people are?
http://tinyurl.com/npt6tThe people need to petition big-shot federal spenders who are unthinkingly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
I have known about that Section. But as you pointed out, Madison’s point of view (and that of others of that time as well) don’t point towards the Hamilton interpretation.
Of course, the real root of this issue is the METHOD of getting earmarks for their home districts... They don’t bring them up as separate bills, they are covertly attached to completely unrelated bills so that they can slide through on the coattails of real legislation. At minimum, this is dishonest and immoral. At best, it is distortion of Section 8.
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.