- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Democrats try to brand earmarks as good
Capitol Hill's top Democrats are making a full-throated effort to rebrand earmarks as good government, not a dirty word synonymous with pork-barrel hijinks.
With President Obama's vow to clamp down on earmarks putting pressure on lawmakers to change their ways, congressional leaders have set out to educate voters about why they think Congress should direct dollars to districts or states for specific pet projects.
"That there is something inherently evil, wicked or criminal or wrong with [earmarks], it's just not the case," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, noting that he earmarked millions of dollars in the pending omnibus spending bill for what he said were worthy projects in his home state.
Mr. Durbin said lawmakers' pet projects are listed in the bill and exposed to public scrutiny, and that members of Congress know how to best spend taxpayer dollars in their districts and states.
"Otherwise, what happens? We give the money to the agency downtown and they decide where to spend it," Mr. Durbin said on the Senate floor. "It isn't as if the money won't be spent. Oh, it will be spent. But it may not be spent as effectively or for projects that are as valuable."
The refrain has been the same from other top Democrats, whether from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada or House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland. Besides touting the merits of earmarks, these Democrats balked at Mr. Obama's announcement last week of a plan to reel in pork-barrel spending.
Both Mr. Reid and Mr. Hoyer made clear that they thought it was out of Mr. Obama's constitutional jurisdiction.
But the "power of the purse" argument does not belong only to congressional Democrats.
When Republicans ran both chambers, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and his colleagues argued just as staunchly that they had both a constitutional right to direct spending and the knowledge of which projects in their districts and states are most worthy.
But earmarks "don't go to the most critical and most important projects across the country" because they bypass the committee process and don't compete for funds with other priorities, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Simply put, if a project is "important", then it doesn't need to be hidden inside a mega-page omnibus document no human being can read.
If it's "important", first off, it needs to fit the limitations of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. 99.9999% of these earmarks do not.
But if it is "important", then it should be able to stand up to a floor vote on it's own merits, and not depend on riding annonymously through congress because the bill being passed is ostensibly for something that does meet Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Anyway, the President should have the power to axe congress (not "ask") in it's never ending desire to waste taxpayer dollars on things the Constitution doesn't permit and that the voters in other states will never benefit from.
Line item veto this stuff, and if any of it is worthwhile...let the whole congress override the veto on that item.
Ain't complicated, ain't difficult, and our new Messiah promised he'd eliminate earmarks....and getting that amendment passed is the only possible way he can do it.