Senate Appropriations Committee Bans Earmarks

Giving in to the inevitable, senate Democratic chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) announced the banning of earmarks in any Senate bill for the next two years.

Republicans controlling the House of Representatives had already put their own ban on earmarks, making it clear that any Senate bill which included them would not be passed through the House and in the SOTU speech Barack Obama made recently he vowed to veto any legislation with earmarks, despite the fact that he had made that promise before and still allowed billions in earmarks while Democrats had been in control of both house's of Congress.

Via The Politico:

The earmarking process has been in limbo since Obama pledged during his State of the Union address last week that he would veto any bill that arrives at his desk riddled with the pet projects. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had already outlawed earmarks in the House.

Reid, meanwhile, vowed to fight the White House, telling the president to “back off.” But in the end, Reid was backed into a corner: He couldn’t get a bill with earmarks through the House, and even if he had, the president would have blocked its final passage.

“The handwriting is clearly on the wall,” Inouye said in a statement. “The president has stated unequivocally that he will veto any legislation containing earmarks, and the House will not pass any bills that contain them. Given the reality before us, it makes no sense to accept earmark requests that have no chance of being enacted into law.”

Inouye said his committee will send each senator a copy of Senate Rule XLIV (44), which is a definition of an earmark.

Text of Rule XLIV below:

1.

(a) It shall not be in order to vote on a motion to proceed to consider a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-

1. that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the bill or joint resolution, or in the committee report accompanying the bill or joint resolution, has been identified through lists, charts, or other similar means including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for each item so identified; and

2. that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before such vote.

(b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, the motion to proceed shall be suspended until the sponsor of the motion or his or her designee has requested resumption and compliance with this paragraph has been achieved.

2.

(a) It shall not be in order to vote on a motion to proceed to consider a Senate bill or joint resolution not reported by committee unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-

1. that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the bill or joint resolution, has been identified through lists, charts, or other similar means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the sponsor of the bill or joint resolution for each item so identified; and

2. that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before such vote.

(b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, the motion to proceed shall be suspended until the sponsor of the motion or his or her designee has requested resumption and compliance with this paragraph has been achieved.

3.

(a) It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a report of a committee of conference unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-

1. that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the conference report, or in the joint statement of managers accompanying the conference report, has been identified through lists, charts, or other means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee of jurisdiction for each item so identified; and

2. that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website at least 48 hours before such vote.

(b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, then the conference report shall be set aside.

4.

(a) If during consideration of a bill or joint resolution, a Senator proposes an amendment containing a congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit which was not included in the bill or joint resolution as placed on the calendar or as reported by any committee, in a committee report on such bill or joint resolution, or a committee report of the Senate on a companion measure, then as soon as practicable, the Senator shall ensure that a list of such items (and the name of any Senator who submitted a request to the Senator for each respective item included in the list) is printed in the Congressional Record.

(b) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution that includes congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits in the bill or joint resolution, or in the committee report accompanying the bill or joint resolution, the committee shall as soon as practicable identify on a publicly accessible congressional website each such item through lists, charts, or other similar means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for each item so identified. Availability on the Internet of a committee report that contains the information described in this subparagraph shall satisfy the requirements of this subparagraph.

(c) To the extent technically feasible, information made available on publicly accessible congressional websites under paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be provided in a searchable format.

5. For the purpose of this rule-

(a) the term ``congressionally directed spending item means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;

(b) the term ``limited tax benefit means-

1. any revenue provision that-

(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and

(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision;

(c) the term ``limited tariff benefit means a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities; and

(d) except as used in subparagraph 8(e), the term ``item`' when not preceded by ``congressionally directed spending means any provision that is a congressionally directed spending item, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit.

6.

(a) A Senator who requests a congressionally directed spending item, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference report (or an accompanying joint statement of managers) shall provide a written statement to the chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, including-

1. the name of the Senator;

2. in the case of a congressionally directed spending item, the name and location of the intended recipient or, if there is no specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the activity;

3. in the case of a limited tax or tariff benefit, identification of the individual or entities reasonably anticipated to benefit, to the extent known to the Senator;

4. the purpose of such congressionally directed spending item or limited tax or tariff benefit; and

5. a certification that neither the Senator nor the Senator's immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9.

(b) With respect to each item included in a Senate bill or joint resolution (or accompanying report) reported by committee or considered by the Senate, or included in a conference report (or joint statement of managers accompanying the conference report) considered by the Senate, each committee of jurisdiction shall make available for public inspection on the Internet the certifications under subparagraph (a)(5) as soon as practicable.

7. In the case of a bill, joint resolution, or conference report that contains congressionally directed spending items in any classified portion of a report accompanying the measure, the committee of jurisdiction shall, to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with the need to protect national security (including intelligence sources and methods), include on the list required by paragraph 1, 2, or 3 as the case may be, a general program description in unclassified language, funding level, and the name of the sponsor of that congressionally directed spending item.

8.

(a) A Senator may raise a point of order against one or more provisions of a conference report if they constitute new directed spending provisions. The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order.

(b) If the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order as to any of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order, then those provisions against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be stricken. After all other points of order under this paragraph have been disposed of-

1. the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the House, and concur with a further amendment, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report that has not been stricken; and

2. the question in clause (1) shall be decided under the same debate limitation as the conference report and no further amendment shall be in order.

(c) Any Senator may move to waive any or all points of order under this paragraph with respect to the pending conference report by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. All motions to waive under this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not to exceed 1 hour equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. A motion to waive all points of order under this paragraph shall not be amendable.

(d) All appeals from rulings of the Chair under this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not to exceed 1 hour, equally divided between the Majority and the Minority Leader or their designees. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair under this paragraph.

(e) The term `new directed spending provision' as used in this paragraph means any item that consists of a specific provision containing a specific level of funding for any specific account, specific program, specific project, or specific activity, when no specific funding was provided for such specific account, specific program, specific project, or specific activity in the measure originally committed to the conferees by either House.

9. No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall knowingly use his official position to introduce, request, or otherwise aid the progress or passage of congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits a principal purpose of which is to further only his pecuniary interest, only the pecuniary interest of his immediate family, or only the pecuniary interest of a limited class of persons or enterprises, when he or his immediate family, or enterprises controlled by them, are members of the affected class.

10. Any Senator may move to waive application of paragraph 1, 2, or 3 with respect to a measure by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. A motion to waive under this paragraph with respect to a measure shall be debatable for not to exceed 1 hour equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. With respect to points of order raised under paragraphs 1, 2, or 3, only one appeal from a ruling of the Chair shall be in order, and debate on such an appeal from a ruling of the Chair on such point of order shall be limited to one hour.

11. Any Senator may move to waive all points of order under this rule with respect to the pending measure or motion by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. All motions to waive all points of order with respect to a measure or motion as provided by this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not to exceed 1 hour equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. A motion to waive all points of order with respect to a measure or motion as provided by this paragraph shall not be amendable.

12. Paragraph 1, 2, or 3 of this rule may be waived by joint agreement of the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate upon their certification that such waiver is necessary as a result of a significant disruption to Senate facilities or to the availability of the Internet.

Inouye's full statement:

I continue to support the Constitutional right of members of Congress to direct investments to their states and districts under the fiscally responsible and transparent earmarking process that we have established.

However, the handwriting is clearly on the wall. The President has stated unequivocally that he will veto any legislation containing earmarks, and the House will not pass any bills that contain them. Given the reality before us, it makes no sense to accept earmark requests that have no chance of being enacted into law.

The Appropriations Committee will thoroughly review its earmark policy to ensure that every member has a precise definition of what constitutes an earmark. To that end, we will send each member a letter with the interpretation of Rule XLIV (44) that will be used by the Committee. If any member submits a request that is an earmark as defined by that rule, we will respectfully return the request.

Next year, when the consequences of this decision are fully understood by the members of this body, we will most certainly revisit this issue and explore ways to improve the earmarking process. At the appropriate time, I will once again urge the Senate to consider a transparent and fair earmark process that protects our rights as legislators to answer the petitions of our constituents, regardless of what the President or some Federal bureaucrat thinks is right.

Brian Baker, president of the nonpartisan group Taxpayers Against Earmarks issued a statement as well saying "An earmark ban is only the first step to reigning in the massive federal debt, out-of-control federal spending and the broken budgeting process in Washington. We will be watching to make sure that our elected officials don’t break their promises to the American people."

As well they should since Inouye himself is an avid user of earmarks, sending hundreds of millions of dollar back to Hawaii for new roads, grants to local police departments and community development funds, among other things. (Source)

Besides Harry Reid who recently stated Obama should "back off" the earmark issue, there are others just as unhappy over this as Reid, such as both of Alaska's Senators, Democratic Senator Mark Begich and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski are bemoaning this moratorium on earmarking.

"I have said many times before, Alaska is a young state with many needs, and we deserve our fair share of federal funding to develop our resources and our infrastructure," Begich said.

Murkowksi, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she believes it's up to Congress to determine spending. By leaving the executive branch to determine such appropriations, they're ceding power to the White House, she said.

"We are in essence abdicating our constitutional duties, giving cabinet departments and federal agencies the sole power, authority and ability to target and spend taxpayers’ money," she said.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent a subtle message to Harry Reid, according to The Hill:

Coburn is also applying political pressure to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has strongly defended earmarks.

“I hope this decision will shift the Senate’s focus from earmarking to oversight and cutting spending," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said in a statement Tuesday. "I hope the rest of the Senate works with, rather than against, Chairman Inouye, President Obama and House and Senate Republicans as we turn our attention away from earmarking and toward the enormous economic challenges facing our country."

.

Dems Roll Out Pork Laden Omnibus Bill, 1,924 Pages, Over $1 Trillion

[Update] Help stop the Omnibus bill that Reid is trying to shove through, go here, scroll to the bottom and start dialing please.

I guess Democrats figure they should get one last hurrah and send a big FU to voters across the country as they do it since Harry Reid, obviously not giving a damn about what voters do and do not want, has unveiled a 1,924-page, $1.1 trillion omnibus bill, chock full of pork.

The omnibus spending bill is reported to cost $1.1 trillion, according to The Hill.

Republican Policy Committee chief Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said that the attempt to pass the omnibus spending bill ignored the will of the American people.

“The attempt by Democrat leadership to rush through a nearly 2,000-page spending bill in the final days of the lame-duck session ignores the clear will expressed by the voters this past election,” Thune said in a statement. “This bill is loaded up with pork projects and should not get a vote. Congress should listen to the American people and stop this reckless spending.”

The lame duck session of Congress ends on Jan. 3, 2011. The next Congress officially begins later that same day. In that Congress, the division in the House of Representatives is 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats; and in the Senate, 47 Republicans and 53 Democrats.

Malkin reports on U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee and member of the Joint Economic Committee's statement after Reid rolled this omnibus bill out:

“President Obama and Democrats have apparently learned nothing from this November’s election. This nearly 2,000-page omnibus filled with thousands of earmarks shows they are still determined to ram through as much big-government spending as they can in this lame duck session. Americans loudly demanded an end to the runaway spending, but Democrats are intent on raiding every taxpayer dollar that they can grab from the Treasury on their way out of power. This bill also funds the unconstitutional Obamacare law that Americans oppose and have asked Congress to fully repeal. Democrats haven’t given Republicans or the American people time to read the bill, but I’ll join with other Republican colleagues to force them to read it on the Senate floor.”

Reid also has other things he wishes to jam down America's throat before the GOP takes control of the House in January and by god he is prepared to force everyone to stay until the very last second to do it.

Forget about going quietly into the night.

Senate Democrats on Tuesday unveiled a broad agenda for an end-of-session sprint that, in other years, could be a whole year's worth of activity — ranging from an arms-reduction treaty with Russia to a major immigration bill to overturning the ban on gay troops.

And that's not to mention the nearly 2,000-page, $1.1 trillion massive spending bill Senate Democrats said they'll try to push through. The bill contains hundreds of pork-barrel spending projects and new rules governing everything from airport baggage to detainees at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"We're not through. Congress ends on Jan. 4," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.

The omnibus spending bill is likely to get the most attention, spanning 1,924 pages and spending an average of $575.13 million per page.

Consider this FU from Reid to America as a Merry Christmas present and a Happy New Years all rolled into one.

Nevada? Aren't you so happy you kept him as your Senator? You must be so proud.

.

GOP's Intention To Upend Spending Process Might Be Chaotic But Will Be More Transparent

The Politico reports that soon-to-be Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner is planning to separate appropriations bills into smaller bills, voted on separately, a plan Boehner circulated a couple months ago to which there are mixed reactions on to date.

The plans include slicing and dicing appropriations bills into dozens of smaller, bite-size pieces — making it easier to kill or slash unpopular agencies. Other proposals include statutory spending caps, weekly votes on spending cuts and other reforms to ensure spending bills aren’t sneakily passed under special rules.

On some level, their plans may create a sense of organized chaos on the House floor — picture dozens of votes on dozens of federal program cuts and likely gridlock on spending bills. And don’t forget that a lot of these efforts will die with a Democratic-led Senate and a Democrat in the White House.

But the intent is to force debate as much as to actually legislate — and make Old Guard Republicans and Democrats uncomfortable with a new way of thinking about the size and scope of government.

In other words instead of jamming dozens of bills and massively huge spending all into one bill, the GOP plans to separate appropriations to force discussion on each bill, which in turn will make government spending more transparent.

Quick explanation of appropriations bill:

An appropriation bill or running bill is a legislative motion (bill) which authorizes the government to spend money. It is a bill that sets money aside for specific spending. In most democracies, approval of the legislature is necessary for the government to spend money.

Quick explanation of what an omnibus bill is:

An Omnibus bill is a single document that is accepted in a single vote by a legislature, but packages together several measures into one or combines diverse subjects into a single bill. Examples are reconciliation bills, combined appropriations bills, and private relief and claims bills. Omnibus legislation is routinely used by the United States Congress to group together the budgets of all departments in one year in an Omnibus spending bill.

Quick explanation of what an Earmark is:

In United States politics, an earmark is a legislative (especially congressional) provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. The term "earmark" is used in this sense only in the United States.

So, Appropriation bills spend the money, an Omnibus bill is often used to combine appropriations, among other things, and earmarks are injected into both.

Using just the Fiscal Year 2010 defense appropriations bill as one example- It was a $636.3 billion Fiscal Year 2010 defense appropriations bill, the government’s largest spending bill. The legislation contains 1,720 earmarks worth $4.2 billion. (Source)

Example from 2009- Approximately $3.9 billion in earmarks were in the omnibus spending bill and earmarks do not get publicly scrutinized during committee hearings like most funding requests .

Ed Morrissey from Hot Air explains what happened this year:

For FY2011, the Democrats didn’t bother to produce a budget at all until after the midterms despite having large majorities and a Democrat in the White House, instead waiting until now to push another huge omnibus spending bill through the lame-duck session. This approach creates pressure for an all-or-nothing vote on the entire federal spending plan, steamrolling those who oppose specific areas of spending — and it’s hard to argue that this is an accident.

Back to Boehner's plan:

Perhaps the most dramatic change is Boehner’s planned Appropriations Committee overhaul to require funding on a department-by-department basis, first reported by POLITICO on Wednesday. His proposal would subdivide the dozen current appropriations bills so that funding for each major federal agency would require a separate House vote.

That proposal, in part, is a reaction to the growing practice of omnibus legislation, which tea party activists and other congressional critics have attacked for its lack of accountability — other than for K Street lobbyists and insiders who are paid well for their expertise. Boehner has been promoting that plan while the leadership-controlled GOP Steering Committee has been assessing candidates for chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

“The [suggested] changes may be easier to follow and make more sense” than the existing practices, said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. “As long as members can make a case for or against a particular program, they will have the basis for objective decisions.”

Smaller bills give lawmakers and the public a chance to understand what is in the bill itself, what they are authorizing money to pay for, what type of extra unnecessary spending is injected into those bills.

It will also help stop the practice of shoving a dozen appropriation bills into one huge omnibus bill, using the necessary spending to force lawmakers to agree to the unnecessary spending in order to guarantee priority spending.

Make no mistake, politicians from both sides will not be happy, because this will force transparency instead of just having politicians promise transparency and then bypassing that promise in their typical sneaky manner.

Bruce McQuain from Questions and Observations makes the following point:

And an objective process in which to identify and eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, parts of agencies (redundant) or entire agencies (unproductive bureaucracies)if the case could be made (and it can – the question is whether it will). But this sort of process at least is a step in the right direction of bringing fiscal sanity back to the appropriations process if it can be introduced and followed.

After November 2, 2010 when voters gave the GOP a second chance by giving them control of the House of Representatives (effective in January), Conservatives and Independents made it clear that they would be watching, they expected the GOP to keep their promises, to cut spending, to focus on the economy and job creation and to make the process they governed by more transparent.

This is a step in the right direction and one that will stop the GOP of the present from walking back and becoming the GOP of the recent past.

.

The Secret Liberals Don't Want You To Know: A Billion Saved Here And A Billion Saved There, Adds Up

Taxes, earmarks, federal pay freezes and government expenditures are all topics of discussion these days and I continue to hear one loud, annoying concentrated chorus from the left; tax the rich.... earmark bans are only a drop in the bucket so why bother, spending freezes for federal workers will only save a couple billion and only save $50 billion over 10 years...etc, etc, etc..

Starting with taxing the rich more than they already pay. Recently it was reported that for every "new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress."

In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.

We've updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more.

We also looked at different time periods (e.g., 1947-2009 vs. 1959-2009), different financial data (fiscal year federal budget data, as well as calendar year National Income and Product Account data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis), different lag structures (e.g., relating taxes one year to spending change the following year to allow for the time it takes bureaucracies to spend money), different control variables, etc. The alternative models produce different estimates of the tax-spend relationship—between $1.05 and $1.81. But no matter how we configured the data and no matter what variables we examined, higher tax collections never resulted in less spending.

Our politicians spend too much money that we do not have, more than we take in.

This is why conservatives are pushing to cut spending rather than raising taxes or letting the Bush era tax cuts expire. Congress doesn't need more money to spend, they need to stop trying to take more just so that they can spend even more.

Which brings us to earmarks and the recently reported proposal by Republicans which is now being echoed by Barack Obama about freezing federal pay, just as two quick examples.

Because it is in the news today, I will start with the proposed Federal pay freeze which Republicans are for and liberals are coming out, almost in one voice against.

The NYT article reporting on the federal pay freeze proposal showed this:

The number of federal workers making more than $150,000 a year has grown ten-fold in the past five years and doubled since Mr. Obama took office, according to a USA Today study earlier this month. Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3 percent annually above inflation, compared with 0.8 percent for private sector workers, according to data cited by the newspaper.

From the White House website we see what the proposed savings would be:

This will save $2 billion over the remainder of this fiscal year, $28 billion in cumulative savings over the next five years, and more than $60 billion over the next 10 years. The freeze will apply to all civilian federal employees, including those in various alternative pay plans and those working at the Department of Defense – but not military personnel.

The liberal argument, it is just a drop in the bucket compared to out deficit.

The media starts the chorus, via The Politico:

If Congress endorses the idea, the freeze would save $2 billion in 2011 and roughly $6 billion a year over the next 10 years – a drop in the bucket of the federal budget deficit, which is expected to top $1 trillion this year and next year....

AmSpec expands on the chorus line:

In his press conference, Obama claimed that the move would save the government $28 billion over five years. Taking that number at face value, that would represent a sixth-tenths of one percent reduction in the projected $4.52 trillion deficit over that same period (2011 through 2015). It would be the equivalent of a person who expects to rack up $10,000 of of credit card debt over the next five years touting the fact that he's found a way to reduce his expenses by $60 over that time period. In football terms, it would be like a kickoff return that gains about a half of a yard.

Other liberals hop on the same bandwagon, via TPM:

Michael Linden, a budget expert at the liberal Center for American Progress calls it "small potatoes", and says it doesn't "don't reduce the deficit very much," saying it saves less that the "discretionary spending freeze."

(Side note- Liberals were against the discretionary spending freeze as well because it would only save $35 billion (5%):

Freezing non-defense discretionary spending at current levels would therefore only produce a total savings of $35 billion in 2015. That year, the budget deficit is expected to be around $760 billion. Saving $35 billion would solve less than 5 percent of the problem.

(End side note)

Back to the TPM quotes from liberals against the federal pay freeze.

Larry Mishel, director of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, calls the savings "chump change".

The examples of the progressively liberal left go on endlessly with the same song, drop in the bucket, small in comparison with the deficit, just a fraction of our debt as they try to claim that raising taxes on the rich would help more... I refer you to the above study which already shows the more new tax dollars Congress gets, they spend it, they do not apply it to the debt.

These are the same arguments that were used regarding the Freezing of non-defense discretionary spending and then we move along to the liberal argument on earmark bans.

According to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, earmarks account for, at most, about $9 billion in projects in the fiscal year 2011 spending bills. Taxpayers for Common Sense identified 3,011 earmarks worth $3 billion in the FY2011 House spending bills and 3,742 earmarks worth $6 billion in the Senate bills.

Liberal politicians, especially those that have benefited from earmarks, like Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who secured $160 million in earmarks this year for 140 projects including hurricane-protection and flood-control needs, stated "I know the Republican caucus is focused on earmarks but that is just one very, very small part of the problem. It not only represents less than 1 percent of the budget; it represents just a fraction of the problem."

Back to that drop in the bucket song.

The sound we heard then and there were liberal bloggers joining in the chorus.

John Cole referring to earmarks as "a nothing-burger when it comes to the budget- less than 1% of the federal budget," ombwatch calls cutting $50 billion a year in earmarks "small in scope," Lou Kaye calls banning earmarks a "complete joke" and again tries to compare it to tax cuts for the wealthy (again I refer her/him to the above study blowing that comparison right out of the water), Rachel Maddow calls banning earmarks "less than one-half of 1 percent. That is a dot on a freckle. That is a fork in an atom."

Her argument is the money is already being taxed, so it saves nothing, just determines where it goes... ummm... if it isn't going to pet projects via earmarks, then it is being spent on essential items so other monies are not having to be slated for those items... hence, saving money Rachel dear.

Those examples too go on and on and on.

Seeing the liberal pattern here? Any cuts in spending are just a drop in the bucket according to them. Liberals want you to look at any cuts as a separate issue, they will use any means, any distraction, to not add them all together and let their readers or constituents know that when you add a billion here a few billion there, tens of billions elsewhere.... wow, it adds up.

Sure individually some of these actions are just a drop in the bucket, but what liberals don't want you to think about it is when a bucket it placed under a leaking faucet, the drip, drip, drip eventually fills that bucket up if it isn't emptied.

.

CNN Finds Democrat's Accusations On GOP Earmarks 'Unfounded'

It is Thanksgiving so I won't be writing a lot of commentary here, but this little fact checking from CNN against the Democrat's accusations that the GOP went against their own ban on earmarks, shows that those accusations are "unfounded" and those trying to push this story are simply being deliberately dishonest.

CNN:

Democratic Party officials are blasting out emails accusing the Senate's second ranking Republican of backtracking on his pledge not to seek earmarks, but a closer look by CNN shows their accusations appear unfounded.

The issue:

$200 million project to provide drinking water for an Indian tribe in Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl's home state of Arizona.

CNN quotes an Obama administration official as to why this is not an earmark:

Dan DuBray, a spokesman for the Bureau of Relocation, part of the Interior Department, says the $200 million was part of a settlement they negotiated with the tribe, and that everyone agreed it was a good idea to pair it with the black farmers' legislation, because by law settlements such as this must be approved by Congress.

"We don't see it as an earmark at all," said Dan DuBray.

Also included in the 272-page legislation are settlements for other Native American groups outside Kyl's state of Arizona: Montana's Crow Tribe and New Mexico's Taos Pueblo and Pojoaque River Basin communities. Democrats Max Baucus (Montana) and Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico) championed funding for those projects.

Also quotes from anti-earmark crusader Steve Ellis, spokesman for the anti-earmark group Taxpayers for Common Sense:

"There's no way Congress (Republican or Democrat) would consider this an official earmark. This does deal with a pay me now or pay me later settlement issue, so Uncle Sam was going to be coming up with the cash whether or not Sen. Kyl got it in".

After winning enough House seats in the midterm elections (63 so far) to take control of the House of Representatives away from Democrats, the GOP, who will be in control of the 112th Congress, approved a ban on earmarks.

Democrats have refused to make the same pledge.


(As just a small example, the $787 plus billion stimulus package was chalk full of earmarks, some listed here and other media reports showing more.)

Earmarks aka Pork:

In American politics, an earmark is a legislative provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects. Earmarking is the term for the process lawmakers use to add funding for "pet projects" to legislation benefiting the lawmakers district.

Lawmakers slip the earmark into other legislation having nothing to do with the projects and get them funded when the legislation is passed.

Taxpayers for Common Sense have a database of FY2010 earmark requests and Washington Watch has a detailed list of Representatives with links to their requested earmarks.

In the past Republicans have been just as guilty of earmarking as Democrats have been and with this GOP ban on earmarks being approved they are symbolically showing voters they understand their concerns and are prepared to address them formally.

It was reported in 2009 that Congress was on pace to spend at least $11 billion on disclosed earmarks for 2010.

$11 billion is just a drop in the bucket in terms of government spending and decreasing the national deficit, but enough drops of water in a bucket will eventually fill it up over the long term and earmarks have become synonymous with wasteful government spending even though some earmarks can benefit many.

Banning earmarks is a baby step but it is a step in the right direction.

.

Senate Democrats May Be Forced To Go On Record Regarding Earmarks

Republicans have hashed it out and now stand united to give American voters what they want and the Senate Republican Conference will approve a two year ban on earmarks aka pork barrel projects for their members and a bipartisan proposal by Sens Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Tom Coburn, R-Oklam will be put forth to the whole Senate as an amendment to another bill which will force Senate Democrats to go on record voting to continue placing earmarks in bills or to vote against it.

McCaskill released a statement Monday applauding the dramatic reversal of Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, in support of a ban on pet projects. In that statement, McCaskill, a close ally of the White House who has never requested an earmark since she was elected to Congress in 2006, said, "I'm glad that Republican leadership is coming around to this idea; now it's my Democratic colleagues turn to get on board."

Coburn and McCaskill are not expected to get a vote on their amendment, which was filed late, but a senior Senate GOP aide said the two could request a roll call vote on their motion to take up the amendment. That, the aide said, would serve as an "on the record vote" on the ban.

Polling done on government spending has found the majority of Americans believe the government should not be spending as they currently do.

In an AP/GFK poll found that 50 percent found that the higher priority should be put on "Reducing the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, even if that means the government could not enact new programs on education, health care reform, and the development of alternative energy sources."

A series of surveys, taken Sept. 12-15, 2010, sponsored by Public Notice and conducted by the Tarrance Group and Hart Research found that a "vast majority" of likely voters were "outraged" over government spending while a majority told the pollsters that government spending would affect how they voted on November 2, 2010.

We all saw how that vote turned out, with the GOP seeing a 60 seat gain in the House to take control, a 6 seat gain in the Senate (only a third of the Senate was in play) and hundreds upon hundreds of seats taken on a state level.

Make no mistake, cutting out earmarks will not, in any way, solve our deficit problems or reduce spending to a point where we can sustain ourselves, but it is a start and more importantly, Congressional members that vote to ban earmarks until we have spending under control are showing that they heard the American public during the midterms and are willing to listen and act accordingly.

Those that do will continue to receive support from the public and those that do not are showing they didn't get the message in 2010 and we then can act accordingly in the 2012 elections.

.

Earmarks- Republican Decides To Practice What He Preaches

[Update] Below original post is a statement issued by U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell via a statement made on the Senate floor.

"Nearly every day that the Senate’s been in session for the past two years, I have come down to this very spot and said that Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people. When it comes to earmarks, I won't be guilty of the same thing"--- Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell

That is the number one promise Republicans made, in my mind, that the American people who voted in the midterms to give Republicans control of the House of Representatives and gave gains to Republicans in the Senate, want Republicans to keep.

Back story here is earmarks and Republicans are pushing for a rule change to ban earmarks as The Politico explains:

Leading Republicans, including Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, are pushing for a rules change in the Senate Republican Conference that would call on all 47 GOP senators to unilaterally abandon earmarks for the next two years. The proposal is non-binding and non-enforceable, and would not affect Democratic senators’ ability to add the spending measures to bills in the coming Congress.

Barack Obama claimed in his weekly address that he also was against earmarks, right before one of his flunkies, David Axelrod, publicly hinted that Obama would allow earmarks into bills from the outgoing Democratic leadership before Republicans take over next year.

But I digress.....

Back to Mitch McConnell.

McConnell was against the earmark ban, stating his belief that an earmark ban "would leave President Obama in charge of spending money on state projects," but has now agreed to back the ban, making the statement quoted above.

Good start on keeping those promises.

We elect our Congress people to represent us, and McConnell is setting himself up as an example of keeping that very important promise Republicans made to be allowed another chance to prove they learned their lessons about ignoring the will of the people and are willing to listen to voters this time around.

More on the earmark issue that is coming to a head over at WSJ.

[Update] U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Monday regarding the united Republican Leadership moratorium on earmarks in the 112th Congress: (Press release found here)

I have seen a lot of elections in my life, but I have never seen an election like the one we had earlier this month. The 2010 midterm election was a “change” election the likes of which I have never seen, and the change that people want, above all, is right here in Washington.

Most Americans are deeply unhappy with their government, more so than at any other time in decades. And after the way lawmakers have done business up here over the last couple of years, it’s easy to see why. But it’s not enough to point out the faults of the party in power. Americans want change, not mere criticism. And that means that all of us in Washington need to get serious about changing the way we do business, even on things we have defended in the past, perhaps for good reason.

If the voters express themselves clearly and unequivocally on an issue, it’s not enough to persist in doing the opposite on the grounds that “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” That’s what elections are all about, after all. And if this election has shown us anything, it’s that Americans know the difference between talking about change, and actually delivering on it.

Bringing about real change is hard work. It requires elected officials — whether they’re in their first week or their 50th year in office — to challenge others and, above all, to challenge themselves to do things differently from time to time, to question, and then to actually shake up the status quo in pursuit of a goal or a vision that the voters have set for the good of our country.

I have thought about these things long and hard over the past few weeks. I’ve talked with my members. I’ve listened to them. Above all, I have listened to my constituents. And what I’ve concluded is that on the issue of congressional earmarks, as the leader of my party in the Senate, I have to lead first by example. Nearly every day that the Senate’s been in session for the past two years, I have come down to this spot and said that Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people. When it comes to earmarks, I won’t be guilty of the same thing.

Make no mistake. I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don’t apologize for them. But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government.

That’s why today I am announcing that I will join the Republican Leadership in the House in support of a moratorium on earmarks in the 112th Congress.

Over the years, I have seen presidents of both parties seek to acquire total discretion over appropriations. And I’ve seen presidents of both parties waste more taxpayer dollars on meritless projects, commissions, and programs than every congressional earmark put together. Look no further than the Stimulus, which Congress passed without any earmarks only to have the current administration load it up with earmarks for everything from turtle tunnels to tennis courts.

Contrast this with truly vital projects I have supported back home in Kentucky, such as the work we’ve done in relation to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Western Kentucky.

Here was a facility at which workers, for years, were unaware of the dangers that the uranium at the plant posed to their health or how to safely dispose of the hazardous materials that were used there. Thanks to an expose about the plant in the 90s by the “Washington Post”, the danger was made known and I set about forcing the government to put a cleanup plan in place and to treat the people who had worked there. Through the earmark process, we were able to force reluctant administrations of both parties to do what was needed to clean up this site and to screen the people who had worked there for cancer. These screenings saved lives, and they would not have happened if Congress had not directed the funds to pay for them.

Another success story is the Bluegrass Army Depot, which houses some of the deadliest materials and chemical weapons on earth. As a nation we had decided that we would not use the kind of weapons that were stored at this site; and yet the federal government was slow to follow through on safely dismantling and removing them, even after we’d signed an international treaty that required it. But thanks to congressional appropriations we are on the way to destroying the chemical weapons at this site safely and thus protect the community that surrounds it.

Administrations of both parties have failed to see the full merit in either of these projects, which is one of the reasons I have been reluctant to cede responsibility for continuing the good work that is being done on them and on others to the Executive Branch.

So I’m not wild about turning over more spending authority to the executive branch, but I have come to share the view of most Americans that our nation is at a crossroads; that we will not be able to secure the kind of future we want for our children and grandchildren unless we act, and act quickly; and that only way we will be able to turn the corner and save our future is if elected leaders like me make the kinds of difficult decisions voters are clearly asking us to make.

Republicans in and out of Washington have argued strenuously for two years that spending and debt are at crisis levels. And we have demonstrated our seriousness about cutting spending and reining in government. Every Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, for instance, voted against every appropriations bill in committee this year because they simply cost too much. Most included funding for projects in our home states. We voted against them anyway.

Banning earmarks is another small but important symbolic step we can take to show that we’re serious, another step on the way to serious and sustained cuts in spending and to the debt.

Earlier this month voters across the country said they are counting on Republicans to make tough decisions. They gave us a second chance. With this decision, I’m telling them that they were right to put their trust in us. And it’s my fervent hope that it will help demonstrate to the American people in some way just how serious Republicans are about not letting them down.

Republican Leaders in the House and Senate are now united on this issue, united in hearing what the voters have been telling us for two years — and acting on it.

This is no small thing. Old habits aren’t easy to break, but sometimes they must be. And now is such a time. With a $14 trillion debt and an administration that talks about cost-cutting, but then sends over a budget that triples the national debt in 10 years and creates a massive new entitlement program, it’s time for some of us in Washington to show in every way possible that we mean what we say about spending.

With Republican leaders in Congress united, the attention now turns to the President. We have said we are willing to give up discretion; now we’ll see how he handles spending decisions. And if the president ends up with total discretion over spending, we will see even more clearly where his priorities lie. We already saw the administration’s priorities in a Stimulus bill that’s become synonymous with wasteful spending, that borrowed nearly $1 trillion for administration earmarks like turtle tunnels, a sidewalk that lead to a ditch, and research on voter perceptions of the bill.

Congressional Republicans uncovered much of this waste. Through congressional oversight, we will continue to monitor how the money taxpayers send to the administration is actually spent. It’s now up to the President and his party leaders in Congress to show their own seriousness on this issue, to say whether they will join Republican leaders in this effort and then, after that, in significantly reducing the size and cost and reach of government. The people have spoken. They have said as clearly as they can that this is what they want us to do.

They will be watching.

Yes we will and yes we are. Kudos.

.

Earmarks- Barack Obama Lies To Public In Weekly Address

November 13, 2010, Barack Obama gave his weekly address and said "Congress should also put some skin in the game. I agree with those Republican and Democratic members of Congress who’ve recently said that in these challenging days, we can’t afford what are called earmarks. These are items inserted into spending bills by members of Congress without adequate review." (Source- White House website)

Certainly sounds like he is against earmarks doesn't it? Almost even makes it seem like he would veto legislation that contains those he does not consider "worthy projects," since he mentioned those are acceptable.

The Hill reports:

White House senior advisor David Axelrod made it clear on Sunday that President Obama has made no commitment to vetoing spending bills that contain earmarks despite calls from fiscal hawks for the president to make that pledge.

Axelrod suggested it may be too late in the year for the president to refuse his signature on bills that contain pork.

"Obviously, this is very late in the game in terms of budgeting and keeping the functions of government operating," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "One of the problems is that these things come embedded in bills that have to be signed."

Democrats are still in control of the House of Representatives until the newly elected Representatives are seated next year and it certainly sounds like Obama is planning on allowing Democrats one last hurrah by way of massive pork aka earmarks in the bills they pass until then.

Midterms taught Obama nothing, he is still telling lies directly to America's face.

H/T Hot Air.

.