No More Earmarxists

www.redstate.com...

Posted by Erick Erickson to Redstate.com
Tuesday, November 9th at 1:18PM EST

As I write this, Mitch McConnell is privately trying to get enough votes to kill an earmarks moratorium among Senate Republicans. The measure is sponsored by Senators Coburn, Cornyn, DeMint, Ensign, and Enzi, along with Senators-Elect Ayotte, Johnson, Paul, Rubio, and Toomey...

First, what's with this "moratorium" malarkey. Washington has so bastardized the "earmark" process, a moratorium is not the answer. The backlog of pet projects, merely put on hold until it has expired, would be a catastrophic, death blow to the economy. The only viable solution is to completely eliminate earmarks. My personal opinion is, if a project is worthy of taxpayer funding, it is worthy of its own bill. If it has to be concealed in other legislation, it is pure and simple theft from the taxpayers.

Senators McConnell, Inhofe, and others say earmarks make up a very small part of the budget and to get rid of them would put all the power in the hands of the Obama administration...

I do not have words for how sick I am of hearing "That's just a small part of the budget" or "That's such a small part of the deficit". Let me go ahead and quash the notion that only some Republicans use these phrases. Just today, with the announcement of the deficit commission's recommendations, some Democrats are making the claim, regarding a freeze on government salaries.

So what if these things are a fraction of the budget? My satellite television bill is a fraction of my budget. Dining out is a fraction of my budget. Copenhagen snuff was a small part of my budget. Internet access on my cell phone was a small part of my budget. A land line phone as well. But, you know what, once I made cuts to some and eliminated others, I significantly affected my budget, allowing me to put more of my money toward decreasing my debt. Pretty simple, really.

So, why doesn't Washington get it? Oh, they do, don't kid yourself. They just don't want you to put 2 and 2 together. As with may other things, they figure that if they can cover the truth with enough BS, you won't want to get any on you and will just give up. Guess what? November 2, 2010 was proof they are wrong.

Yes, Congress does have the power to spend money, but the vast majority of earmarks are spent on completely unconstitutional projects and activities. Lets take some of the earmarks requested by Senator Jim Inhofe (who we hear has been on quite the war path lately in defense of earmarks). Did the Founders really envision the federal government paying for developing curriculum in the Tulsa public schools for students at risk of dropping out ($195,000) or a river ferry boat program in Oklahoma City ($1.7 million) or an “engineering incubator” in Norman ($137,200)? What clause of the Constitution do those fall under exactly?...

The list of maddeningly ludicrous pet projects is endless. What is the amount spent on them over, say, the last ten years? Twenty years?

The author ends with

Of course not. So let me say it. Earmarks are certainly not the only issue, but they are the most telling as to whether Republicans really have learned their lesson in the minority. Here is what I suggest:

•Do not accept the conservative bona fides of any politician who has failed to take the moratorium or who argues for them.

•Do not allow any politician to speak to a tea party rally unless they have taken such a pledge.

•Criticize any “agenda” or any “contract” from any Republican leader or Republican entity which doesn’t include an immediate, unilateral earmark moratorium.

It is time to purge the earmarxists from the conservative movement.

Purge them, indeed. However, I still prefer to take it a step further and call for their complete elimination, rather than a moratorium.

If they don't listen, prepare for The Replacements II, coming to a polling place near you in the fall 2012.

One bill, one law.

One legislative act, one law.

The only way to defeat the earmark component.

I admit, I was drawn in by the word 'earmarxist'...cute.

The article points to more of the reasons the Tea Party shouldn't have let themselves be usurped by the celebrity republicans and really should've just went their own way.

I know, I know...you're a 'movement' and not a 'party'. Well, how does it feel to be supporting all the wrong ideas the progressives and liberals warned you about?

Ok, ok, lesser of two evils...you got me again, you didn't want to 'waste' your vote on a real independent candidate, that moderate liberal might've won! Really now, who are you kidding? Be your own party already, stop conceding yourselves to the corporate mouthpieces. You could've been something, you could have really saved the country...but you drank the republican kool-aid.

reply to post by links234


You know, the Democrat Kool-Aid is the same sugary water, with a different flavor. In 2006 and 2008, you elected the Dems on promises of "We're not Bush" and "We'll fix the economy" and "We'll fix healthcare". This year, the Reps ran on "We're not Obama" and "We'll fix the economy and the deficits" and "We'll fix healthcare". If they fail to follow through, you'll see the carving knife come out again.

Maybe, just maybe, the people will chose to replace them with independents or third party candidates.

By the way, my ballot was marked for Libertarians and two Dems.

IF we don't manage to kill earmarks in the next two years, let's get into the habit of paying attention to who gets what and how much.

It would be great if some kind soul could post up a chart of the current congress and who has taken earmarks, how much have they taken, and what did they take it for?

Then, we as the voters, vote the fools out. Corrupt people can't control a nation of awake, angry people... not for long anyway.

reply to post by sisgood


I don't have a chart, but you can get some good info here at Citizens Against Government Waste and at CAGW

The first link is for November's Porker of the Month, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL). The second is the archive list, otherwise known as the Porker of the Month Hall of Shame.

Be sure to take your blood pressure medicine before reading the descriptions.

Originally posted by WTFover
www.redstate.com...

Posted by Erick Erickson to Redstate.com
Tuesday, November 9th at 1:18PM EST

As I write this, Mitch McConnell is privately trying to get enough votes to kill an earmarks moratorium among Senate Republicans. The measure is sponsored by Senators Coburn, Cornyn, DeMint, Ensign, and Enzi, along with Senators-Elect Ayotte, Johnson, Paul, Rubio, and Toomey...

First, what's with this "moratorium" malarkey. Washington has so bastardized the "earmark" process, a moratorium is not the answer. The backlog of pet projects, merely put on hold until it has expired, would be a catastrophic, death blow to the economy. The only viable solution is to completely eliminate earmarks. My personal opinion is, if a project is worthy of taxpayer funding, it is worthy of its own bill. If it has to be concealed in other legislation, it is pure and simple theft from the taxpayers.

Senators McConnell, Inhofe, and others say earmarks make up a very small part of the budget and to get rid of them would put all the power in the hands of the Obama administration...

I do not have words for how sick I am of hearing "That's just a small part of the budget" or "That's such a small part of the deficit". Let me go ahead and quash the notion that only some Republicans use these phrases. Just today, with the announcement of the deficit commission's recommendations, some Democrats are making the claim, regarding a freeze on government salaries.

So what if these things are a fraction of the budget? My satellite television bill is a fraction of my budget. Dining out is a fraction of my budget. Copenhagen snuff was a small part of my budget. Internet access on my cell phone was a small part of my budget. A land line phone as well. But, you know what, once I made cuts to some and eliminated others, I significantly affected my budget, allowing me to put more of my money toward decreasing my debt. Pretty simple, really.

So, why doesn't Washington get it? Oh, they do, don't kid yourself. They just don't want you to put 2 and 2 together. As with may other things, they figure that if they can cover the truth with enough BS, you won't want to get any on you and will just give up. Guess what? November 2, 2010 was proof they are wrong.

Yes, Congress does have the power to spend money, but the vast majority of earmarks are spent on completely unconstitutional projects and activities. Lets take some of the earmarks requested by Senator Jim Inhofe (who we hear has been on quite the war path lately in defense of earmarks). Did the Founders really envision the federal government paying for developing curriculum in the Tulsa public schools for students at risk of dropping out ($195,000) or a river ferry boat program in Oklahoma City ($1.7 million) or an “engineering incubator” in Norman ($137,200)? What clause of the Constitution do those fall under exactly?...

The list of maddeningly ludicrous pet projects is endless. What is the amount spent on them over, say, the last ten years? Twenty years?

The author ends with

Of course not. So let me say it. Earmarks are certainly not the only issue, but they are the most telling as to whether Republicans really have learned their lesson in the minority. Here is what I suggest:

•Do not accept the conservative bona fides of any politician who has failed to take the moratorium or who argues for them.

•Do not allow any politician to speak to a tea party rally unless they have taken such a pledge.

•Criticize any “agenda” or any “contract” from any Republican leader or Republican entity which doesn’t include an immediate, unilateral earmark moratorium.

It is time to purge the earmarxists from the conservative movement.

Purge them, indeed. However, I still prefer to take it a step further and call for their complete elimination, rather than a moratorium.

If they don't listen, prepare for The Replacements II, coming to a polling place near you in the fall 2012.

Tell us what marxism is.

earmarks have nothing to do with marxism.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


You could ask the author, since I've provided the link. Or, you could just address the meat of the article.

Serious question, because I don't much follow politics so I lack some context:

Is the reason for earmarks potentially part of the same system that has the feds take far too much money/power from the states, and then give a little back 'with strings attached' based on what they have to spend it on? Are earmark'd projects part of the socio-political background negotiations based on that kind of thing?

reply to post by RedCairo


Thanks for the reply. I think the best description of earmarks is coordinated graft, intended to satiate the voters who inspired Frederic Bastiat's claim, "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Basically, they are add-ons to most times unrelated bills, funding some project in the congressman's home district. Look into the insane amount of bribery required to garner support for the Affordable Care Act.