Senators rejected this morning a binding three-year ban on earmarks proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.). The vote failed 39 to 56, well short of the 67 votes required to advance the measure, but was the strongest showing ever by earmark opponents. Also, Coburn succeeded in his goal to get Senators on the record on pork spending.
Seven Democrats backed the proposal: Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Michael Bennett (Colo.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Mark Udall (Colo.), and Mark Warner (Va.). All are either freshman members, retiring/defeated members, or up for reelection in 2012.
Eight Republicans, primarily members of the Appropriations Committee, went on the record against the ban: Sens. Bob Bennett (Utah), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), James Inhofe (Okla.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Richard Shelby (Ala.), George Voinovich (Ohio).
As Cochran and other have made clear, everyone on that list — apart from Bennett (defeated in primary) and Voinovich (retiring) — should expect a primary challenge in their next election. Only Lugar is up in 2012, though he has been especially defiant in the face of criticism from the right, earning him a place in the heart of the The New York Times.
Even without a formal ban, pork-lovers are going to have a difficult time keeping the practice alive in the 112th Congress, with House and Senate Republicans voting to do away with earmarks on their own. Expect the GOP to continue its efforts to isolate Harry Reid and Senate Democrats on the issue.
It will be interesting to see how the Democratic leadership responds, specifically in regard to the pork-laden omnibus spending bill awaiting a vote. From Politico:
The massive bill already represents a serious bipartisan effort to reach a compromise by cutting up to $26 billion from President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget. And with nearly 40 senators supporting the moratorium, the Appropriations Committee leadership faces the threat of endless delays if some accommodation is not reached.
In private conversations, such steps are not being ruled out, and the combination of budget cuts and no binding legislative earmarks would be a sea change from where Congress stood just months ago. But with fiscal deadlines fast approaching — and the continuing election-year acrimony — it’s not clear the parties are prepared to grasp the potential deal before them.
More here.
"It will be interesting to see how the Democratic leadership responds"
It will also be interesting to see how the leadership of our own party responds. Can we please hear some condemnation from the leadership for the Earmark Eight?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust one more reason why Senator Lugar should seriously consider retiring at the end of this term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know, it's horrible, but the headline "Senators Can't Quit Earmarks" conjures up images of Brokeback Mountain, only with Senators showing their forbidden love of pork, much to the shock of their constituents. I feel a Reason.com parody coming on...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do find it at least encouraging that only ONE incumbent Republican up for re-election in 2012 voted for pork.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe 2 800 pound gorillas in the room that are going to bankrupt us all are 1 medicare and 2 social security. It is nice they are talking about wage freezes for government workers and it's too bad this earmark ban did not pass, but these moves are more symbolic than effectual when it comes to lowering the deficit. I would be happy to see elaborate plan social security accounts like Rep Ryan wants, but that idea was pushed by Bush in 2005-06 and got about as much support as Obamacare.
Sometimes the simple answer is the best one, raise the social security and medicare eligibility age to 67 then continue to raise it one month a year. Forever.
Or at least until some future congress and president, maybe not even born yet, decides to halt the annual increases and instead peg the eligibility age to something that makes since given the age demographics and life expectancy.
This not a perfect solution, and I agree with the arguments that people who are arguing for individual accounts are making, but something has to be done, I think my idea (not mine originally) has a better chance of getting through congress and singed by a president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePork gets you re-elected.
Pork helps feather your nest.
Pork feeds the ego.
Until we elect representatives that are interested in public service instead of "self" service, the pork problem will continue. Term limits are part of the answer, but the first step is to elect servants, not masters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEarmarks need to be abolished. They are simply another way to use public money to buy votes and make inside deals on legislation that would otherwise not be beneficial to the constituents.
I am disappointed with Inhofe and would expect no less from Murkowski, Lugar and Shelby. What is the argument against a ban?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe targets for 2012 are showing their colors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know much about the internal workings of the Senate, but it would send the right message if all of them were taken off the Appropriations Committee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Cochran is term limited under the Republican conference rules. He served as chairman of the committee in the 109th Congress and then as ranking member in the 110th and 111th Congresses. That should max out his 6 years. Anybody know if there's been talk of a waiver for him? I know they didn't give Hatch a waiver to continue on as ranking member of Judiciary when his 6 years expired. Hoping they're not planning on giving Cochran one. That should put Shelby in line for the spot unless he wants to continue on at Banking in which case Hutchison would be next in line.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn Russell,
Remember each "earmark" is in a bill which passes the entire house.
The "bad" earmark is one inserted as a rider in an unrelated bill without being seen or debated and rewards a favoured constituent. It should go... period.
The "good" earmark is one for specific funding for a weapons system, for example. It should stay.
Consider a world without earmarks (directed spending). It puts all spending decisions into the hands of Obama's executive branch. Do you think he won't gut programs to ensure his favoured programs (Obamacare?) are protected as well as possible? I think he will.
I believe we will come to have a strange new respect for the earmark in the times ahead.
Just so everyone knows, an "earmark" neither adds to or subtracts from an appropriation. It just "earmarks" so much of the spending to a specific cause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think this earmark thing is overblown. Yes, it's symbolic in that it affects and effects very little as a percentage of the budget, and it neither adds nor subtracts from the overall cost of an appropriation. The argument that if the earmarks aren't there then the executive branch has the discretion is moot too. You don't want the executive to have the discretion, then don't allocate the money at all. If the "earmark" is for $2billion, then simply don't add that $2 billion to the bill and make them do with less. Instant cost savings. It should be done this way anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm soooo looking forward to voting against Lugar.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Republicans supporting earmarks deserve to get "whacked" the next time they are up for election. We must run Conservative Constitutionalists against them in the Republican primaries.
Of course all Democrats supporting this garbage have to be voted out of the Senate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFive bucks today. Five million tomorrow. Kill the earmarks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHonest brokers understand an inserted spending appropriation in a completely unrelated bill to be what it appears to be - a bribe. That is an earmark.
Lugar will get a challenge and while he has a huge reservoir of good will in Indiana, don't think he won't have to sweat a little. If the tea party comes behind one opponent, he could be in trouble.
And Murkowski should be taken off the appropriations committee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs I just e-mailed my senator,Jim Webb, these politicians just don't get it or even care. We are 14 trillion dollars in debt. the only way we will ever make any headway into that type of debt is to cut SPENDING. Any tax increase will just be spent so that's no answer.
Cut spending by 10% across the board and hold it there till the debt is more manageable. Since everybody is getting hit nobody can scream discrimination. ? is will these pols have the guts to do what needs to be done. The alternative is the USA eventually ending up like Greece. Problem is they'll be nobody to bail us out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEarmarks are the lowest of the low hanging fruit on the ''cut federal spending'' tangled mess. Any legislator who will agree to a ban is still a legislator on probation. Any legislator who will not even get this lowest of hanging fruit is obviously an enemy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEarmarks are the lowest of the low hanging fruit on the ''cut federal spending'' tangled mess. Any legislator who will agree to a ban is still a legislator on probation. Any legislator who will not even get this lowest of hanging fruit is obviously an enemy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTHIS NEEDS TO BE THE LEAD STORY ON ALL NATIONAL REVIEW MEDIA.
Sens. Bob Bennett (Utah), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), James Inhofe (Okla.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Richard Shelby (Ala.), George Voinovich (Ohio).
GOODBYE TRAITORS.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse