Comments (19) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Going all in
Tools
Facing a monumental washout this November, House Democrats underwent an election year conversion this week and announced they'll ban earmarks to for-profit entities.
Republicans promptly called their bluff and went all in.
With a handful of Democrats encountering ethical difficulties, and the recent investigation of several House members over defense earmarks, House leaders clearly took their step in order to seize an election-year issue from the GOP.
But Republicans quickly grabbed it back, vowing not to lard up any spending bills this year with any earmarks.
"We have a real possibility of regaining the majority, and I think a lot of members realize that we have to regain the voters trust somehow," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "Earmarks are the most visible thing that we can do because we abused it so badly in the past."
Hear, hear.
Earmarking is the term used to describe it when a member of Congress drops a pet project into a spending bill. These grants or direct payments may benefit a local government, a community organization or a profit-making entity. They have come to symbolize congressional profligacy at a time when many voters are now demanding fiscal restraint and responsibility.
Rep. David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Appropriations Committee, said he hoped that banning the practice when it comes to for-profit entities would result in 1,000 fewer earmarks and help Congress alter the perception that members routinely hand out lucrative contracts and grants to campaign contributors.
Taxpayers for Common Sense notes that last year's defense appropriations legislation included 1,720 earmarks worth $4.2 billion. "For-profit earmarks are really where the rubber meets the road as far as corruption," Steve Ellis of the watchdog group told The Associated Press.
That's great, as far as it goes. But add up all the spending bills -- not just defense -- and Congress crammed through 10,000 earmarks worth about $16 billion. If members remain free to route the pork fat back home to nonprofit entities, the problem has not been adequately addressed. Why should the people of Nevada have to pay to remodel Lawrence Welk's boyhood home in North Dakota?
"I've long said that earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington," said Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who has crusaded against the practice. "Banning earmarks is a long overdue, common sense step that will help Congress win back the trust of the public and tackle our mounting fiscal challenges.
That's why House Republicans did the right thing this week by going all in. Let's hope Sen. Coburn can convince GOP senators to follow suit. And if the Democrats don't match the pot, many of them may be out of the game come November.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Another prime example of how corrupt BOTH parties are.
Rather than fixing the problem they are both giving election year promises that will do little to nothing in the long term.
Unfortunately earmarks (aka bribes) are standard procedure for both parties to get the votes they need to pass legislation.
If either party were serious about fixing the earmarks problem they would propose legislation to ban or severely limit earmarks. The reason they won't is it's an election year and it might get passed, severely limiting both parties ability to be corrupt.
Rep. Jeff Blake (R-AZ) quote per earmarks "because we abused it so badly in the past".
Historically, both parties have used earmarks.
The LVRJ argument is null and void.
Case closed.
So the democrats want to ban earmarks for for-profits only so they can keep on funneling money into corrupt organizations such as their fearless leader's big supporter ACORN.
This GOP pledge should be part of a nationalized Contract including Repeal of Obamacare if it happens, border protection, defeat Islamofascism, choice in education,use of our domestic energy resources now. That the GOP finally did this is a mark that they have repented of their tax and spending woes. And that should be part of the Contract too.