Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) learned a valuable lession today about member’s desire to go back to the practice of earmarking pet projects. Toomey and McCaskill offered an Amendment to the STOCK Act that would have created a new Senate point of order against earmarks in bills. They were met with bipartisan opposition to this common sense idea.
Senate Porkers Defeat Earmark Ban
Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) learned a valuable lession today about member’s desire to go back to the practice of earmarking pet projects. Toomey and McCaskill offered an Amendment to the STOCK Act that would have created a new Senate point of order against earmarks in bills. They were met with bipartisan opposition to this common sense idea.
The Earmarxists are Back
It’s another week in the Senate, and there’s another battle over earmarks. Senators Toomey and McCaskill are proposing an amendment to the STOCK Act (“insider trading bill”S. 2038) to permanently ban earmarks in the Senate. Not surprisingly, there is pushback from Harry Reid…and a number of Republicans as well.
As always, there are those who argue that earmarks are just inconsequential “drop in the bucket” expenditures; that we must focus on more impactful issues. This from Senator Cornyn:
He continued, “I wish we would focus on what the American people are most concerned about rather than some of these other issues that have their importance but are tangential to the main issues we ought to be focused on.”
“I think we ought to [instead] be looking at other ways to … address people’s concerns about jobs and the debt,” Cornyn said.
Yes, there are more pressing issues, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can spend a half hour voting on one amendment to scrub earmarks from the Senate once and for all. Moreover, it is precisely because eliminating earmarks is such an easy, low-hanging fruit that we should deal with it immediately. If senators are unwilling to relinquish millions in pork projects, how will they have the courage to cut billions from welfare programs and reform entitlements?
There are also the usual suspects who hold earmarks to be a moral and constitutional responsibility.
The Earmarxists are Back
It’s another week in the Senate, and there’s another battle over earmarks. Senators Toomey and McCaskill are proposing an amendment to the STOCK Act (“insider trading bill”S. 2038) to permanently ban earmarks in the Senate. Not surprisingly, there is pushback from Harry Reid…and a number of Republicans as well.
As always, there are those who argue that earmarks are just inconsequential “drop in the bucket” expenditures; that we must focus on more impactful issues. This from Senator Cornyn:
He continued, “I wish we would focus on what the American people are most concerned about rather than some of these other issues that have their importance but are tangential to the main issues we ought to be focused on.”
“I think we ought to [instead] be looking at other ways to … address people’s concerns about jobs and the debt,” Cornyn said.
Yes, there are more pressing issues, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can spend a half hour voting on one amendment to scrub earmarks from the Senate once and for all. Moreover, it is precisely because eliminating earmarks is such an easy, low-hanging fruit that we should deal with it immediately. If senators are unwilling to relinquish millions in pork projects, how will they have the courage to cut billions from welfare programs and reform entitlements?
There are also the usual suspects who hold earmarks to be a moral and constitutional responsibility.
Neil Stevens
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Daniel Horowitz
Jake Walker
