GOP : McCain must accept earmarks

Hatuey · 09-17-08, 01:45 PM

Even GOP says McCain must accept earmarks - Yahoo! News

Quote:

But McCain will find it almost impossible to live up to his vow, and gridlock would result if Congress refused to go along with such an executive branch power grab.

And that’s what members of McCain’s own party are saying.

“I don’t think it’s the right approach,” said Rep. Ralph Regula, an Ohio Republican who has spent three decades on the House Appropriations Committee. “I haven’t done an earmark I wouldn’t be happy to have spread all over the front pages of the paper.”

Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), a former Appropriations Committee chairman, warns that both parties in Congress would protect their power against a no-earmark policy.

“The Constitution is very specific and very clear about who appropriates money,” Young said. “Not all earmarks are pork-barrel spending.”

McCain has billed himself and his running mate as mavericks who will stand up to foolish spending.

The campaign has pitched Sarah Palin as a governor who said “no thanks” to an earmark for Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere,” although press reports have established that she supported the earmark before she opposed it.

Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican and member of the Appropriations Committee, says he understands McCain’s desire to crack down on wasteful spending and kill the latest “bridge to nowhere.” But if a McCain administration suddenly started shooting down every spending bill, lawmakers on both sides might revolt.

Quote:

But as many veteran lawmakers point out, for every far-flung Alaskan bridge project or hippie museum, there are dozens of other earmarks that are politically palatable, like military base housing improvements, levee upgrades and Veterans Affairs hospital wings.
And many of these are never requested by the executive agencies or the White House.

Young points out that it was one of his earmarks back in the early 1990s that created the National Bone Marrow Registry. And the Predator drone — an unmanned aircraft critical in the war on terrorism — was created by a congressional earmark.

Quote:

“The idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful executive bureaucracy is more trustworthy than the elected representatives of the people when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars challenges the most basic tenet of our political system,” Byrd said in a statement. “An earmark is an economic need that many times falls between the cracks of the Washington bureaucracy. When that happens, the people we represent cannot call some unelected bureaucrat in the White House budget office.”

Regula, a longtime appropriator who has been in the minority, the majority and back in the minority in Congress, says the endgame is simple — a compromise with the new president, whoever that is.

“There are a lot of campaign promises that will come up against reality,” Regula said. “It’s one thing to go and say it on the trail. It’s another thing to do it in the real world.”

I wonder how this will fly with the many Republicans who only support earmarks when it's for them.

Objective Voice · 09-17-08, 02:49 PM

It's not that I have a problem with politician's earmarking funds for their constituancy, but rather what those earmarks are for. If the money is for some over-inflated pet project, then my answer would be "NO" to it. But if the moneies are to go towards funding something worthwhile and necessary, then I'm all for it.

I think if anything the reviewing process for bills loading with earmarks and/or pork-barrel spending needs to be re-evaluated, but as a whole I do think "flagging" funds for some worthwhile projects/programs is necessary. I suppose that's why Congress establishes committees and votes on bills in an attempt to ensure excess spending doesn't take place. Unfortunately, lobbyist groups have muddied the Congressional waters to the point where it's no longer just merky. It's filled with algie and all kinds of bacteria these days.

Summerwind · 09-17-08, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Even GOP says McCain must accept earmarks - Yahoo! News

I wonder how this will fly with the many Republicans who only support earmarks when it's for them.

I think its more important to note that McCain is only promising it because he knows there's no way he can actually do it; therefore he won't be held accountable, but will instead be able to blame Congress which is likely to become a tad stronger in its Democratic-ness. They are setting up for 2010 mid-terms to take Congress back.

Gibberish · 09-17-08, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

I think its more important to note that McCain is only promising it because he knows there's no way he can actually do it; therefore he won't be held accountable, but will instead be able to blame Congress which is likely to become a tad stronger in its Democratic-ness. They are setting up for 2010 mid-terms to take Congress back.

I have more of a problem with McCain consciously flat out lying to the American people. He knows he can't do what he's saying but continues to say it because it sounds good.

He should also throw in there promises for $1 million bonus for all Americans and World Peace. Those are just as obtainable as no earmarks.

tryreading · 09-17-08, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gibberish

I have more of a problem with McCain consciously flat out lying to the American people. He knows he can't do what he's saying but continues to say it because it sounds good..

Right, just like McCain was against an AIG bail out 2 days ago, but he's all for it today. He's no more going to stop earmarks than the Republican party is going to become fiscally conservative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gibberish

He should also throw in there promises for $1 million bonus for all Americans and World Peace. Those are just as obtainable as no earmarks.

He might take a page from Palin'$ past, and give Americans money like she did for Alaskan$. True, it wouldn't be near a million, though.

RightinNYC · 09-17-08, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gibberish

I have more of a problem with McCain consciously flat out lying to the American people. He knows he can't do what he's saying but continues to say it because it sounds good.

He should also throw in there promises for $1 million bonus for all Americans and World Peace. Those are just as obtainable as no earmarks.

What makes you think that it's so "impossible" to get rid of earmarks? In 1970 there were 12 earmarks. Last year there were 15k.

We survived just fine in the 200 years before they became commonplace, and we could survive just fine without them.

John1234 · 09-17-08, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Even GOP says McCain must accept earmarks - Yahoo! News

I wonder how this will fly with the many Republicans who only support earmarks when it's for them.

Palin already explained this during an interview or speech or something.

She said there are good earmarks and bad earmarks.
She is only against the ones that are not transparent and she is for "good" ones.

Basically i took this as meaning that she is for "Republican" Earmarks.
But not those evil Democratic Earmarks.

Lerxst · 09-17-08, 06:32 PM

Congress appropriates. Appropriations mean power and mean elections. This is a reality that the OP is talking about. I have said this from day one of McCain's anti-earmark campaign. It's a sham. He will never get rid of all earmarks nor should he. Congress would in fact revolt and he would be a lame duck, one term caretaker President.

Earmarks will stay, they will just be trimmed a bit and they will be a bit more transparent. But know that they are going nowhere.

Lerxst · 09-17-08, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John1234

Palin already explained this during an interview or speech or something.

She said there are good earmarks and bad earmarks.
She is only against the ones that are not transparent and she is for "good" ones.

Basically i took this as meaning that she is for "Republican" Earmarks.
But not those evil Democratic Earmarks.

And Palin is right on that...there are good ones and bad ones.

But she would be sadly mistaken to think that she or McCain could cut out the majority parties earmarks and not see a severe backlash. Spending bills have to go through Committee and Conference before they go to the President. If the Dems even sniffed an attempt to cut them by the White House they would strangle the Republicans before the bills were done.

McCain and Palin will saber rattle and make campaign promises they can't possibly keep...so will Obama. It's politics right?