McConnell endorses earmark ban

[sailingaway]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7295669.html

Last thing I saw was Mike Lee and Rand calling for a public vote on this, and De Mint saying he had the votes if it was done publicly, now this.

I actually don't agree on this point, but I guess it is nice for Rand to be on the winning side.

 

[RyanRSheets]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7295669.html

Last thing I saw was Mike Lee and Rand calling for a public vote on this, and De Mint saying he had the votes if it was done publicly, now this.

I actually don't agree on this point, but I guess it is nice for Rand to be on the winning side.

It seems ironic. As much as Republicans criticize the president's spending, they want to hand over control of just a little more money to him and the executive branch by eliminating earmarks. I'd prefer we would just get rid of the funding altogether so the pork didn't just become less transparent pork, but I think I'd prefer to see it kept out in the open if it's going to be spent anyhow.

 

[TheDriver]

It seems ironic. As much as Republicans criticize the president's spending, they want to hand over control of just a little more money to him and the executive branch by eliminating earmarks. I'd prefer we would just get rid of the funding altogether so the pork didn't just become less transparent pork, but I think I'd prefer to see it kept out in the open if it's going to be spent anyhow.

Sen. Coburn on your concerns (sorta):

1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money

This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn’t spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It’s that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253028/earmark-myths-and-realities-sen-tom-coburn#




I'm totally shocked McConnell is endorsing this..... :o

 

[cswake]

It seems ironic. As much as Republicans criticize the president's spending, they want to hand over control of just a little more money to him and the executive branch by eliminating earmarks.

Won't this give them the flexibility to now scrutinize how the Executive branch earmarks the funds?

 

[sailingaway]

Sen. Coburn on your concerns (sorta):

1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money

This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn’t spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It’s that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253028/earmark-myths-and-realities-sen-tom-coburn#




I'm totally shocked McConnell is endorsing this..... :o

It is the constitutional separation of powers keeping the power of the purse in the legislature that was preserved since the Magna Carta which concerns me. There is a REASON the line item veto was found to be unconstitutional.

However, as a voluntary 2 year process to put pressure on for reducing spending -- ok. But grudgingly. And only because it is nonbinding so they can vote to change it unilaterally if Obama wigs out.

I don't see how Ron can possibly vote for it in the House, though, without giving up his 'has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.'

 

[purplechoe]

The headline is FALSE!!!

WASHINGTON — In a further tea party win over the Senate GOP establishment, the top Republican in the chamber on Monday unexpectedly fell into line behind demands by House leaders for a moratorium on pork-barrel projects known as "earmarks."

 

[7_digitz]

i could swore i read in the local paper about mitch was trying to undercut demint. futher more, according to the 43rd president, mitch has a habit of saying something publicly then pleading for the exact opposite privately

 

[sailingaway]

i could swore i read in the local paper about mitch was trying to undercut demint. futher more, according to the 43rd president, mitch has a habit of saying something publicly then pleading for the exact opposite privately

He had been trying to, but when they called for a public vote he changed his mind. There were more than a majority on record from having supported banning earmarks when the Dems overruled it in the Senate, and if they were seen to shift it wouldn't have been pretty.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I'm totally shocked McConnell is endorsing this..... :o

If McConnell supports it, it must be pretty lame. Non-binding and temporary.

 

[TheDriver]

If McConnell supports it, it must be pretty lame. Non-binding and temporary.

No, he probably realized he could just submit spending the old-fashion way (pre 1970s), through the right committee, and not in the dead-of-night.

 

[sailingaway]

Sen. Coburn on your concerns (sorta):

1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money

This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn’t spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It’s that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253028/earmark-myths-and-realities-sen-tom-coburn#




I'm totally shocked McConnell is endorsing this..... :o

Actually, no. These earmarks are put on after the amount of spending is already fixed. Then the earmark says $X of that precise amount will go to [my project]. Without the earmark for how it is spent the total amount is sent to the executive branch which controls where the spending goes, behind closed doors.

The only real spending argument is that people ignore stupid earmarks and other flaws in a bill because they want their own spending in the bill to sail through and vote for overall spending bills that may not be justified. That is where the fact that Ron never votes for the bills means HE is not at moral risk there. Which is why MCCONNELL trying to piggyback on Ron's position when McConnell DOES vote for the bill is disingenuous.