Thread: Earmark Ban

Depending on how its written, this might be the only good thing Tea Baggers (if you consider DeMint a tea bagger) bring to the table this year. Likely they'll fuck it up though.

It's a good symbolic start but it's pretty meaningless when it comes to really denting the budget.

I hope they do it. It will be hard to take the next REAL steps without banning earmarks as a show of good faith.

Nice start, but "riders" are the real issue on bills.

Hmmmm... according to Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.), quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the move away from campaign-season rhetoric has begun. A week or so ago:

As recently as Sunday, Christiane Amanpour asked the right-wing ophthalmologist, "Would you say no to earmarks?" He replied, "No more earmarks." She followed up, asking "No more? Not even in your state?" Paul answered, "No."

Nov 6th:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

It's a good symbolic start but it's pretty meaningless when it comes to really denting the budget.

I hope they do it. It will be hard to take the next REAL steps without banning earmarks as a show of good faith.

What are the next steps? I'd bet money the house GOP aren't able to put forth any legislation in the next 2 years going after defense spending, medicare/medicaid, or social security.

Originally Posted by Triage

Hmmmm... according to Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.), quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the move away from campaign-season rhetoric has begun. A week or so ago:

As recently as Sunday, Christiane Amanpour asked the right-wing ophthalmologist, "Would you say no to earmarks?" He replied, "No more earmarks." She followed up, asking "No more? Not even in your state?" Paul answered, "No."

Nov 6th:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

Teabagger tears are so yummy. And the principled Mr. Paul intends to vote against the debt ceiling raise secure in the knowledge that it will only be symbolic. What happened??? No filibuster?

if you believed that a congresman wasnt going to pursue earmarks, or that obama wasnt going to raise taxes on <250k earners, or that bush was going to be a uniter not a divider, feel free to hit yourself on the head with a tack hammer because you are a retard

of course the simple solution would be to not vote for any of these liars, but most people dont really have a problem with it unless its the "other side"

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

It's a good symbolic start but it's pretty meaningless when it comes to really denting the budget.

I hope they do it. It will be hard to take the next REAL steps without banning earmarks as a show of good faith.

That's so fucking agreeable. You're losing your edge. pussy.

So obama said on mondays sixty minutes that he would work with the new congrss on removing earmarks, and then rand paul says he's now opposed to it. Next thing you know dbt and rubicon will come on here and tell us that we need to keep them just to be counterobama. Then jer will tell us how big of winners we are all for arguing on this. And dex will say something smart.

1) "Earmarks" aren't just pork projects. Apparently (and I'm not fully up to speed on this, but I heard it on the radio the other day) anything that is appropriated by congress is an earmark. To fully eliminate earmarks means accepting the budget as submitted by the president, which leaves all appropriations to the departments/organizations that the president assigns them to. So, if Obama says "50 million dollars for HHS", congress can't do anything with how any of that will be spent. Not saying that makes it better or worse, but there's probably something to be said for congress having a say in where the money goes, and the "anti-earmark" legislation that's proposed aims to eliminate this ability (meaning that they lose the ability to help determine how the president's proposed budget is spend). I'd say "earmarks" (as in, money appropriated by Congress) aren't the problem - overly aggressive earmarks to disproportionately support one's own constituents or donors are.

2) Unless I missed something, Rand Paul didn't say anything about being opposed to removing earmarks. He said that he'd advocate for Kentucky's interests. That was the only part of that bit that was a quote. The rest of that, the part about "he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level" is a paraphrasing (note the lack of quotes in the article), and may belie an agenda on the part of the writer (though the WSJ is typically friendly to the right, Rand Paul isn't a favorite). Given my point above about what earmarks actually are in Congressional terms (not just crazy pork), his apparent belief that the "earmarks" should be done transparently at the committee level seems the responsible balance that needs to be sought. There's still (always) a chance for misuse, but at least he seems to be against having them slipped in from the floor as a tit-for-tat to ensure passage of an unrelated bill. I think that sort of wheeling and dealing is what most people are actually against when they talk about the need to eliminate earmarks.

I don't really have a particular opinion either way on Rand Paul, but to go from his actual quote ("I will advocate for Kentucky's interests") to "OMG! HE'S JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!!! WHAT A LIAR!!!!" is a bit dishonest. Doesn't mean he's not going to turn out that way, but I wouldn't say it's happened yet.

advocate for my states interests pretty much = euphemism for pursue earmarks

it is the reason congressmen give for doing it(and its a valid reason)