sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
Discussion of various issues addressed in GOP caucus yesterday
- Thread starter sailingaway
- Start date
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
Worthless posturing.
I believe the house GOP had one in effect this year, and Ron Paul violated it, right?
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
Wrong, he refused to agree to it. It was voluntary. He was reelected with 81% of the vote.
Oh OK, he refused to stop using earmarks despite the House leadership moving in that direction. Didn't this almost cost him his chairmanship?
This Pres. debate season, Ron won't be the only one on stage different on foreign policy, it looks like he'll be the only one on stage defending earmarks.
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
Sooo, how much did that temporary moratorium save in the budget? Did it make one lick of difference?
Many here keep saying it doesn't save much money (with that logic in-mind), well the elimination of the Dept. of Energy wouldn't save much money either, but many here would support eliminating it.
Dept. of Commerce would be another example...
No one thing besides entitlements or severely crippling the defense budget makes a big difference.
If we can't cut small stuff, how can we have any credibility to cut larger ones?
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
Good thing I didnt say anything about size. Did it save even one penny?
Please show me exactly where this temporary moratorium saved one penny.
I don't buy the argument about it doesn't cost anything to earmark. That's like saying ObamaCare won't cost anything. Or that it gives the spending to the Pres to do what he wants. (Obama can somewhat already do what he wants) None of that changes the fact we shouldn't be sneaking in traffic lights or college grants in the dead-of-night as earmarks. Those programs do cost something.
Let's say it does give the spending decisions to Obama ^ for the sake of argument, then of course it would save money, because if Obama didn't already buy what he wanted (with that earmark money) he would have had to issue some type of executive earmark (spend more money) to get what he wanted.
Something that troubles me, that I not sure anyone here wants to have a serious conversation about is how Inhofe pointed out on Freedom Watch or Cavuto last week ( I forget which one) that he has to change some of Obama's "earmarked" defense spending, Inhofe implied that Obama didn't know how to protect America (and he did). Obama had marked some money for some weapons system, and Inhofe said we need jet fighters.
While I'm not sure I like Obama deciding this, he is the Commander-in-Chief, but Inhofe is a Senator from OK.
Seems a little troubling, especially if you are the man in charge (Obama) and people are working against what you think you need, in the military.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be debate, but Inhofe implied that he, personally, was changing it, and he, personally, knew what was best.
Maybe he was just posturing, but still it was troubling for me. :o
To play devil's advocate, it's logically impossible to show "exactly" where it would save anything, given that in theory the earmarks will not exist. Taken to the extreme, you can say that even while passing a balanced budget amendment, you'd be unable to show "exactly" where that would save money, since an amendment does not require specific budget cuts, only general (and it would cause these cuts in budgets that do not yet exist).
I see your point, but do you also see that Obamacare would not have passed without the earmark for the one Senator's state medicaid funds? Wouldn't a ban have saved money in that case? (If that wasn't an actual earmark, please forgive my mistake...I'm simply arguing that while not as important as entitlement reform or elimination, an earmark ban is for most members of the Senate a HUGE step toward changing the spending culture up there.)
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
Yeah, I'm not sure I like the sound of that.
This all goes back to Ron's position on earmarks. What remains unknown is if Ron will submit earmarks as part of a BALANCED BUDGET. I have a hunch he won't.
Hence the beauty of the question.
Well no, since the moratorium was in the house not the senate. So it isn't relevent to my impossible to answer question.
Similar threads
