November 16th, 2010
09:26 AM ET

Earmarks could get ax from GOP senators

GOP senators face a tough vote Tuesday on whether to ban earmarks, a policy House Republicans already have in place and are expected to keep in the new Congress.

The idea of prohibiting members from designating funding for specific projects in their states or districts is popular with reform-minded deficit hawks, but opposed by congressional veterans trying to steer funds to constituencies back home.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, a longtime defender of earmarks, announced Monday that he intends to vote for the ban when the GOP Senate caucus meets Tuesday.

FULL STORY

Post by:
Filed under: Politics
soundoff (15 Responses)
  1. duke

    Ol mitch don't like that!!

    November 16, 2010 at 10:29 am | Report abuse |
  2. phil

    Earmarks are for pigs. So I see nothing out of the ordinary here.

    November 16, 2010 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
  3. phil

    If we ban earmarks, how will we know one pig from the other?

    November 16, 2010 at 10:34 am | Report abuse |
  4. David

    And yet they are gonna vote to give 70 billion in annual earmarks to the top 2 percent in the form of tax cuts for the wealthiest, who won' use it to hire Americans despite what the GOP says. Mr. Boehner, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

    November 16, 2010 at 11:15 am | Report abuse |
  5. DavidC

    And yet they are gonna vote to give 70 billion in annual earmarks to the top 2 percent in the form of tax cuts for the wealthiest, who won' use it to hire Americans despite what the GOP says. Mr. Boehner, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

    November 16, 2010 at 11:15 am | Report abuse |
  6. CaptainObvious

    You can go to America Speaks Out dot com and voice your opposition to outsourcing. There are already thousands of people on that site demanding an end to outsourcing. Let's see if they really want to listen to the will of the people. Our manufacturing tax is 35% compared with Canada's 6% and is most likely a contributing factor to our still shrinking manufacturing base. I'm all in favor to ending earmarks and any other form of legal congressional bribery.

    November 16, 2010 at 11:43 am | Report abuse |
  7. CaptainObvious

    Technically an earmark is a last minute addition to a bill in order to buy a vote. During the health care bill process there were tons of additions to the legislation that had nothing to do with medicine or health insurance. Many Americans were upset that states were awarded money depending on their representative's vote. I'm actually for health care reform, but I believe a good bill will pass on it's merits and not on bribery. I'm all for not raising taxes on rich people as long as they cater to the interests of the American worker. I would tax outsourcing companies much higher and companies that keep jobs here should get a break.

    November 16, 2010 at 11:53 am | Report abuse |
  8. Richard in Texas

    Why do the republicans hate small communities, towns and cities across America. Earmarks are how they get money for civic projects to help better their home towns. It helps businesses to create jobs. Both are to help the average citizen looking for work or live in a better community. I hope the republicans vote to help the American people and not the radical right.

    November 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm | Report abuse |
  9. DavidC

    Richard in Texas – As a typical New York Liberal, I seldom find common ground with the Lone Star State, but AMEN, brother!

    November 16, 2010 at 12:47 pm | Report abuse |
  10. CaptainObvious

    Umm why not have bills specifically designed to fund projects in states? I'm not against federal dollars funding local projects, but a high speed rail system has nothing to do with health care. It's very unorganized and looks like bribery. Imagine if the phone book had restaurants in the hair salon section. You'd never be able to keep track of anything. Its a waste of time and resources to do it that way.

    November 16, 2010 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
  11. duke

    Yes republicans hate earmark?
    Just ask how much earmarked monies help build the joe bruno stadium??
    Newly elected repubs are getting special made-up committee chairmanships that come with big raises on top of their newly elected salaries(isn't that an expansion of government/waistful spending??
    And there is another repub who was complaining about his government run health insurance(that he campaigned against,but now that he is in,he's mad because it take 28 days to kick in.
    You people are doing the same dance to the same song,just a different D.J!(If dolly sing "I will always love you,
    And Whitney sing "I will alway's love you,there is no difference same song .
    Big D or Big R it's all the same..

    November 16, 2010 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
  12. DavidC

    Duke – well said!

    November 16, 2010 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
  13. JEM

    No; arming pilots with guns is the only answer that makes sense

    November 16, 2010 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
  14. CaptainObvious

    For once Duke I agree. Which is why I'd like to see the process simplified so the average person can understand it. There are crooks on both sides which is why ending earmarks is a good idea. Just because an earmark benefits you doesn't make it good. Bills should be passed on its effectiveness not on how much free money can be sent to on the fence representatives. The process has been abused and will continue to be abused. When an earmark passes politicians profit from kickbacks by private companies. It's all a crock.

    November 16, 2010 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |
  15. hsr0601

    The SHAMELESS reps' principal : No principal & power-only !
     
    1. Anti-DISCLOSE Act VS. Pro-Earmark Ban

    It is apparent that the largest form of wasteful spending can arise from the Shadowy Campaign Money offered by the greedy interest group.
    And Earmarks accounted for about $16 billion, less than 1 percent, of federal spending in 2010, small potatoes in contrast to Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
     
    2. The reps & jobs
     
    a. Even when the economy was on the cusp of entire collapse just like Lehman Brothers ahead of the roll-out of stimulus package, it was held hostage by Audacity of Nope, and the time was running out.
    Power first said : Nope ! How do we pay for it ?, Just let him go under exactly like Lehman Brothers.
     
    b. It is also important to remember a small business bill that was blocked for weeks by a republican filibuster in the Senate.
     
    c. Power first now says without hesitation : Extend the tax cuts for the greedy until we’re out of this recession, or for the job creation.
    Under the failed Bush tax cut for lavish bonus parties, a sole job plan for the reps, the country already saw millions of job cuts.
    And hence it's the right time to ask themselves as to how they can pay for it.
     
    d. Jobs ahead in another Bush era ( = Entire Downfall ) ??
    I think D.S. is going to realize vividly how Bush era wrecked economy.
     
    3. The reps campaigned on their ability to cut spending and balance the budget, so they should be required to make good on that pledge.
     
    But, the Bush tax cut for the greedy will add an additional $700 billion to the deficit over a decade.
    As for the Democrats, sound investments = deficit hike.
    As for the reps, failed giveaway policy = job creation.
     
    4. Over the duration of healthcare debate, using the preliminary cost analysis of CBO, the reps opposed the public option stubbornly, but after the release of final score, they have been defiant on the referee.
     
    Inaction cost in relation to health care reform totals $9trillion over the next decade.
    The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that reform will reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years and as much as $1 trillion during the following decade
     
    5. In view of Medicare & Social Security :
     
    “Don't Let Government Touch Your Medicare & Social Security”
    “We will instead Stomp On Your Medicare & Social Security”

    November 17, 2010 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |