Across the board, and no exceptions.
House Republicans approved a conference-wide moratorium on earmarks on Thursday, one day after a House committee enacted a ban on for-profit earmarks.
The Republicans’ moratorium is more extensive than the House Appropriations Committee’s ban in that it applies to all earmarks for all members of the caucus.
(Via Instapundit) Rep. Pence calls it a ‘clean break,’ which it is: I forget who out there has noted that this has been at least partially brought about by it being an election year. Which is fine by me; fear of the consequences of ticking off the voters is a perfectly good motivational tool for keeping legislators in line, as the upcoming Congressional elections are going to demonstrate. There’s going to be a goodly number of Democratic object lessons Congressmen who are going to wish that they had trusted their instincts in that regard, in fact.
Moe Lane
PS: Democratic praise for this is, of course, worth its weight in gold. Speaker Pelosi’s in particular: she has no intention of giving up earmarks. After all, her current strategy for passing health care rationing relies on the hope that enough members of her own caucus will be willing to prostitute their votes…
Well, that’s unfair. To prostitutes.
PPS: Give up the ‘it’s a small portion of the budget!’ wheeze. The problem with earmarks is that they encourage legislators to treat the Federal Budget as their own personal cornucopia/no-limit, no-consequences credit card. As everyone who pays even rudimentary attention to this sort of thing knows perfectly well.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
Dan Spencer
Moe Lane
Dan McLaughlin
But only for
Gmac Thursday, March 11th at 8:59PM EST (link)a year. Still, it beats what the other side offered, which was a payout to all of their ‘non-profit’ pals and a snub to anyone in the private sector that operates a real ‘for profit’ business.
That it occurs in an election year is simply icing on the cake.
Just so
eastbaylarry (Diary) Friday, March 12th at 1:11PM EST (link)And this means that it will at least be harder for the progressives to give their -non-profit friends like ACORN handouts.
2+2=4 dammit!
Moe, you are too kind. Seriously.
The_Gadfly (Diary) Thursday, March 11th at 9:31PM EST (link)A credit card? Call it what it really is, a no cost legally sanctioned bribery fund.
Oops..... Not Earmarks........
Kenny Solomon (Diary) Thursday, March 11th at 9:36PM EST (link)Earrings.
They swore off earrings.
I’m kidding,
I hope.
While I like this step...
fmaidment (Diary) Thursday, March 11th at 9:41PM EST (link)…it’s too bad they haven’t taken it every year for the past, oh, I don’t know, 16 years?
I seem to remember a certain contract that unfortunately didn’t include earmark/pork barrel/congressionally directed spending reform…
Know what I want on the GOP platform this year? How about a constitutional amendment banning earmarks?
Follow Me on Twitter
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
– - Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791
And TX-14 will not get any as well.
tjexcite (Diary) Thursday, March 11th at 9:44PM EST (link)well not put in by the rep but by some dem who will do him a favor. So he can then vote no and not have the earmark done by him.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ron+Paul
When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all
That was my first thought
jwebb (Diary) Friday, March 12th at 7:57AM EST (link)Now the Ronulan Overlord will have nothing left to do but vote to name post offices.
That was my first thought
jwebb (Diary) Friday, March 12th at 7:57AM EST (link)Now the Ronulan Overlord will have nothing left to do but vote to name post offices.
Wow! Let Obama decide how to spend it!
Adjoran (Diary) Friday, March 12th at 6:03AM EST (link)Eliminating “earmarks” alone does NOTHING at all to save money. Earmarks only specify how appropriated money is to be spent. Cut out the specifications, and the money is still spent, but the Administration has flexibility on how it is spent.
This is about entertaining the rubes with bread and circuses. It has ZERO to do with cutting spending. Not a single penny would be saved.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program of Congressmen biting the heads off live chickens . . .
Basically correct but
eastbaylarry (Diary) Friday, March 12th at 1:15PM EST (link)although this does not reduce spending, it will inhibit the vote buying, which is what the earmarks are/were used for,
2+2=4 dammit!
Basically correct but
eastbaylarry (Diary) Friday, March 12th at 1:15PM EST (link)although this does not reduce spending, it will inhibit the vote buying, which is what the earmarks are/were used for,
2+2=4 dammit!
Agreed.
wannabeanncoulter Friday, March 12th at 4:39PM EST (link)This ain’t my first time at the rodeo either.
I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using “hijack” and “religion” in the same sentence. — Ann Coulter
According to Enhoff
grandma Friday, March 12th at 12:29PM EST (link)I heard an interview with Enhoff on WLS am Chicago this morning. Enhoff said that the earmarks should be labeled as appropriations not earmarks. If congress doesn’t appropriate this money that the executive branch will be able to do the appropriations of this money according to executive branch discretion. And that’s not good news.
Please correct me if this isn’t so.
TY