Earmarks as a GOP Issue for 2008
December 5th, 2007 at 06:07pm Mark Noonan
David Freddoso notes how the House GOP seems to have hit its stride on a return to conservative, Republican principles:
House Republicans have been fighting and winning the few little battles they can, considering they are in the minority in a body where the minority has few rights. But tonight they won big on a motion to recommit the Intelligence Authorization Act to committee, with instructions to remove all earmarks from the bill.
This is one of many such little wins the House GOP has enjoyed, peeling off moderate and marginal-seat Democrats as they do so. The committee is not obligated to follow the instructions, but they can only ignore them if Democratic leaders are willing to ram the earmarks through, over a clear majority vote of the House.
It may just be a symbolic vote, but it demonstrates just how powerful the Democrats think the earmark issue is — 62 Democrats voted with a unanimous Republican caucus, including many of the most vulnerable: Boyda (Kan.), McNerney (Calif.), Lampson (Tex.) and Chris Murphy (Conn.), to name a few.
If Republicans have any chance of winning back the majority next year, the earmark issue holds forth more hope for them than any other issue right now. It resonates with taxpayers when you tell them they will be funding hippie museums and fake jobs programs for corrupt, power-hungry members of Congress.
The Democrats talk of ending earmarks in 2006 - just as their talk of ending corruption - was just that: talk. Earmarks and corruption were endemic to the Democratic majority prior to their 1994 defeat, and they waited in massive impatience for their chance to return to the trough big time as a majority party. Now that they are back in, they simply want to forget 1995-2007 and act as if nothing happened…but, they forgot that the House GOP once upon a time was the party of clean politics and spending restraint…and now that the GOP has received a well-deserved lesson, it is now time to start hammering the Democrats for being, well, Democrats…corrupt and spendthrift.
With Iraq becoming an ever clearer success, with the economy still doing quite well, with corruption now becoming a stain on the Democrats, with immigration/border security as an issue - add to this an old-fashioned GOP campaign against wasteful spending and tax hikes, and the GOP has a winning set of issues for 2008. All that is needed for victory is an effective campaign to bring this before the American people.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Congress, Corruption, Democrats, Republicans
16 Comments
1. liberalT | December 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
explain to me how Iraq is a success. Surely there has been improvement in the last few months - but its just that - improvement from a complete disaster. Still even with violence down almost 1000 people died in horrible violence. 10s if not 100s of thousands are dead since the beginning of the war - they do not have a functional government.. Where is the success - your standards are damn low
2. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
LiberalT,
If you won’t go and read the reports of the success and accept that things are going quite well - and, also, that it never was the disaster you on the left made it out to be - then there’s really nothing for me to say to you on the subject. But, however you may view it, as the troops start to come home crowned with victory, any leftwing attempts to be a wet blanket at the party will be punished at the polls.
Its time, you see, for you to let go of Iraq…it never was what you think it was, and it won’t be what you hoped it would be in 2008.
3. liberalT | December 5th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
i am sorry Mark - but all of the reasons we were told we went to war with Iraq with are know known to be false - and the majority of Americans now agree with me that it wasn’t worth it.
Are you simply in denial of the fact that at least 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of Iraqis died because of horrible violence and who knows how many else because of conditions we caused from the war. The millions of refugees - the completely broken government in Iraq.
No Mark - it is not my burden - it is your burden to show us how it is a success. Show us that 10s to 100s of thousands of people had to die for the situation we have now.
4. liberalT | December 5th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
and by the way you never answered my question from another post. Although surely violence is down from its peak in 2006 - you consider close to 1000 people a month dead from sectarian violence a great success? Obviously hugely better than 2000 - but seriously 1000 dead every month is a huge success?
5. liberalT | December 5th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
sorry should be now known - duh
6. TiredofLibBullShit | December 5th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I see liberaltwit wants the Iraqi people to be under the bootheels of Saddam and his BDSM sons where the “functioning” government killed and tortured people at their leaders’ whim.
How many hundreds of thousands were found in mass graves?
How many thousands died as a result of chemical attacks?
How many died in the rape and torture rooms?
liberatwit wants a return to the good old days because anything else was a failure and not worth it.
Pathetic……
7. liberalT | December 5th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
look - the simple fact of the matter is that Saddam was a horrible brutal dictator. However - after the first gulf war he was contained with a very small army and literally could not move a tank without the US airforce knowing about it.
Where are those graves where 100s of thousands were found btw? Same place as the WMD i suppose?
Look obviously Saddam was horrible - but that doesn’t mean that you do what we did - there were other option!
8. Ricorun | December 5th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I agree that the GOP should push earmark reform aggressively. I would like to see it become a major campaign issue. As I see it, that issue along with lobbying influence (the two are not the same, but they aren’t completely independent either), underlies a lot of the corruption that we attribute to the political process.
Both parties, collectively, can be rightfully accused of being serial offenders. Likewise, individual members of both parties can be rightfully accused of being serial offenders. And I suspect that the only way ALL OF THEM will be compelled to knock it off is to outlaw it — and to enforce the laws. I admit that I don’t really know how it could be done effectively. That being said, I applaud the Dems for making an issue out of it this year. But I also applaud the Reps for pointing out they weren’t willing to go nearly far enough — and pressuring them to go further. Obviously though, neither party has a monopoly on concern. As we have seen too often, their concern ends as soon as their political interests interfere.
But I’m pretty sure that in pursuit of those goals, term limits aren’t the answer. My guess is that term limits will do more to empower lobbyists and entrench earmarks than eliminate them. Thus, it would be yet another example of the law of unintended consequences. But I’m willing to be educated on this stuff. I am, like I think most people are, tired of being played for a sucker by my congresscritters, regardless of whether they have a D or an R after their name. So I would really like to hear what candidates — on both sides — have to say about it. So push it. PLEASE push it. It will do us all a world of good.
9. Casper | December 5th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
“With Iraq becoming an ever clearer success,”
Yes there have been some success, but we are far from finished. IMO, if we still have over 100,000 troops in Iraq in November it’s a Democrat landslide. If there is 50,000 or less the Republicans win.
“with the economy still doing quite well,”
A lot can happen in the next eleven months. If unemployment and inflation go up it’s going to be very tough on the GOP.
“with corruption now becoming a stain on the Democrats,”
It will depend a lot on how much the Republicans screw up. Yes the Democrats are corrupt, but so are the Republicans. The questions is who blows it the most.
“with immigration/border security as an issue -”
Rallies the base, loses the Hispanic vote.
“add to this an old-fashioned GOP campaign against wasteful spending and tax hikes, and the GOP has a winning set of issues for 2008. All that is needed for victory is an effective campaign to bring this before the American people.”
Considering how much Bush and Congress spent in their 6 years of power this might be tough. However, you can always count on the stupidity of the democrats to help push thing your way.
Rico,
“But I’m pretty sure that in pursuit of those goals, term limits aren’t the answer. My guess is that term limits will do more to empower lobbyists and entrench earmarks than eliminate them.”
Maybe I’m wrong, but I would hope that term limits would rid congress of some of the long entrenched congresscritters, who are more in tune with the Beltway than the people who voted them in.
10. TiredofLibBullShit | December 6th, 2007 at 7:11 am
LiberalTwit…….
You are in classic denial.
Where are the mass graves? Weren’t you paying attention???….Oh, who am i kidding…if it was not part of the talking points….if you did not get it from THE SOURCE it didn’t happen. You want to know where they are, try weaning yourself off the liberal teat of information and research it for yourself!
Contained??? oh please. The sanctions were not working. The Oil for Food Program was full of UN and European corruption. The “food” was not getting to the people and the UN wanted to lift the sanctions. Meanwhile, Saddam still played his games with the inspectors. The UN and Clinton weren’t doing anything to enforce the cease fire agreement. Clinton did his token bombings to distract from his neverending scandals.
Other options???….besides 11 years and 18 resolutions??? The international community had no desire to force Saddam to do what he agreed to begin with. Meanwhile, people were still getting slaughtered - CNN looked the other way so they could remain in country for the occasional sound bite. Women were still getting raped as playhtings for his sons and henchmen. The torture rooms were still in full swing.
Other options and containment……you just keep believing that (pat, pat, pat on the head).
You are indeed the quintecential(sp) “Useful Idiot”.
Now….truly PATHETIC.
11. steveGA | December 6th, 2007 at 8:58 am
TiredofLibBullshit,
Actually, since it is now quite clear that Saddam had no WMD, it should be clear to everyone that containment did work. If containment hadn’t worked, Saddam would have built up his military and his arsenal of WMD.
This really isn’t that hard to understand, just apply some basic logic.
12. TiredofLibBullShit | December 6th, 2007 at 9:35 am
steveGA,
clear? - you are another one in denial.
Based on your “logic” - if you stole my television and everyone knew you did, and then entered your house to search for it, but did not find it then (again according to your “logic”) you did not steal it.
The UN still has documentation that states the 1000s of Iraqi WMDs, precursors, delivery systems still not ACCOUNTED FOR. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Until 2001, your party even stated the dangers of Saddam and his WMDs.
It’s not hard to understand, but when you are a USEFUL IDIOT………
13. Ricorun | December 6th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
casper: Maybe I’m wrong, but I would hope that term limits would rid congress of some of the long entrenched congresscritters, who are more in tune with the Beltway than the people who voted them in.
I appreciate the sentiment. And frankly, I could be convinced either way. I’m not a Washington insider and I have no detailed knowledge about how it works. It seems to me that that kind of knowledge would be crucial to making a truly informed decision. But I don’t have it. So I have to go on my impressions, things I have read and generally accumulated over the years. And logic, of course. So with that caveat in mind, here’s my thinking on the matter:
1. No congresscritter operates in a vacuum. In many ways they depend on their staff and other advisors when making decisions. However, I think it’s fair to assume that the longer they serve in any capacity they become increasingly more informed about the complex and difficult issues they are required to confront. That, I would say, is a good thing.
2. It stands to reason that the less a given congresscritter knows about a particular issue, the more swayed they can be by those who work with or for them and/or advise them. So, assuming that point #1 is true, term limits would virtually guarantee that your average congresscritter would be less informed about the complex and difficult issues they are required to confront. Of course, the complexity and difficulty of the issues will not change. Thus, it seems to me, congresscritters on average will be forced to rely on those who advise them. That increases the power of those advisors.
3. Many Washington staffers are career individuals, who don’t necessarily work for the same person throughout. In fact, I assume that is rather rare. Consequently, if point #2 is true, that means that unelected individuals, with tenuous affiliations with the elected officials will have more power in making decisions. In other words, if term limits become law, THEY are likely to become the power brokers to a greater degree than exists now.
4. Unless they are independently wealthy and spend a lot of money on their own campaigns, and/or they have high name recognition going in, Congresscritters have to rely on the support of one or more powerful interest groups to get elected. I would say that’s especially true to the extent that a candidate is not an incumbent. Theoretically at least, the more of a track record a candidate has on his or her own accord, the more independent they become. And thus, the less beholden they become to powerful interest groups.
Now, I fully admit that point #4 is theoretical. And by making it I am by no means saying any given congresscritter WILL become independent of the interest groups that got them elected, I’m just saying that they CAN if they want to (at least to a certain extent). Obviously though, some congresscritters elect to remain beholden to powerful interest groups. Some go so far as to cultivate those kinds of relationships, or invent their own. And if you think about it, those are the ones that the concept of term limits is supposed to address. But considering everything… will term limits do anything to improve the situation? If my argument is correct, it appears not. Rather, it makes interest groups MORE powerful, not less. And we’ve seen situations where interest groups went amok: Tammany Hall in New York was a good example. The candidates were interchangeable. Boss Tweed and his ilk were the real power brokers. As were Huey Long’s machine in Louisiana and the Daleys in Illinois.
14. coulterfan | December 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Who are the Kings of Pork? The Republican Senators Cochran and Stevens!
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sens.-cochran-stevens-lead-in-earmark-tally-2007-12-03.html
Under the GOP Congress, the Federal Government grew faster than at ANY time since WWII! Funny how the Republicans NOW claim that they want to end earmarks- THEY are the ones who spent FAR MORE on earmark spending than ANY Democrat!
15. coulterfan | December 6th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
For reference, the 2005 GOP Federal Budget contained 6,271 earmarks and $24 BILLION in pork-barrel spending. Included were things like: $50 million for an indoor rainforest, $500,000 for a teapot museum; $350,000 for an Inner Harmony Foundation and Wellness Center; and $223 million for a “Bridge to Nowhere.”
In 2006 GOP earmarked $29 BILLION- an INCREASE of 5 BILLION!
By contrast the 2007 budget UNDER DEMOCRATIC CONTROL (their first budget of the term) contains 18 billion in earmarks- still a lot, but a HUGE reduction from GOP control.
And NOW that the GOP doesn’t have power they SAY they want to reduce earmarks? WHY didn’t BUSH veto ONE budget under the Republican COngress despite this EXPLOSION in pork-barrel spending?
The Democrats have shown FAR GREATER fiscal constraint than the last Republican Congress EVER did!
16. Ricorun | December 6th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
coulterfan: The Democrats have shown FAR GREATER fiscal constraint than the last Republican Congress EVER did!
Oh please. The evidence suggests nothing of the sort. IMO, what the evidence DOES suggest is that short of divine intervention (or something else equally unlikely — like REAL transparency that actually STICKS), the only objective solution is to keep government divided.