- 11/12/10 12:41 PM ET
Republicans took their case to the public on Friday in a battle over whether earmarks would be allowed in the 112th Congress.
Lawmakers on different sides of the debate made their case for or against earmarking, the practice of lawmakers directing funding to specific projects, ahead of an impending debate among Republicans over whether to end the process.
"Those who view earmarking as an expression of the 'congressional prerogative' sell Congress short of its pre-eminent role as the first branch of government," wrote Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in an op-ed for The Washington Post.
Flake, a longtime critic of earmarking, took direct aim at some of the Republicans — especially those in the Senate — who have defended the practice by arguing that the absence of earmarking would give President Obama too much leeway in allocating funds.
"As the defenders of earmarking are fond of saying, earmarks represent less than 2 percent of all federal spending," Flake wrote. "Precisely! By focusing on a measly 2 percent of spending, we have given up effective oversight on the remaining 98 percent."
On the House side of Congress, where Flake serves, the incoming majority Republicans appear poised to extend a voluntary moratorium on earmarks for the next two years (though not over the objections of some members).
But the Senate is shaping up for a much more contentious internal debate over whether to end the practice. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) plans to offer a resolution at a meeting of GOP senators next week proposing an end to earmarks, but he's been met with early resistance.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has been public this week in his defense of the practice, and looked to make his case to conservatives on Friday about why earmarking should be allowed.
"Rightly concerned about the future of our country and the out-of-control spending taking place in Washington, these concerned citizens are being duped by the earmark debate," Inhofe wrote of the debate in a piece for National Review Online. "Getting rid of earmarks does not save taxpayers any money, reduces transparency and gives more power to the Obama administration."
Inhofe has made a number of media appearances this week in defense of the practice, and other Republicans — Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.), for instance — have not committed to supporting the DeMint resolution.
Republicans in the Senate will look to settle the debate next week in a conference vote — a vote that's been seen as a test of DeMint's newfound power against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). A majority of the Republicans who participate — probably 46, pending the outcome of the Alaska Senate race — would need to approve the ban.
Lawmakers on different sides of the debate made their case for or against earmarking, the practice of lawmakers directing funding to specific projects, ahead of an impending debate among Republicans over whether to end the process.
"Those who view earmarking as an expression of the 'congressional prerogative' sell Congress short of its pre-eminent role as the first branch of government," wrote Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in an op-ed for The Washington Post.
Flake, a longtime critic of earmarking, took direct aim at some of the Republicans — especially those in the Senate — who have defended the practice by arguing that the absence of earmarking would give President Obama too much leeway in allocating funds.
"As the defenders of earmarking are fond of saying, earmarks represent less than 2 percent of all federal spending," Flake wrote. "Precisely! By focusing on a measly 2 percent of spending, we have given up effective oversight on the remaining 98 percent."
On the House side of Congress, where Flake serves, the incoming majority Republicans appear poised to extend a voluntary moratorium on earmarks for the next two years (though not over the objections of some members).
But the Senate is shaping up for a much more contentious internal debate over whether to end the practice. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) plans to offer a resolution at a meeting of GOP senators next week proposing an end to earmarks, but he's been met with early resistance.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has been public this week in his defense of the practice, and looked to make his case to conservatives on Friday about why earmarking should be allowed.
"Rightly concerned about the future of our country and the out-of-control spending taking place in Washington, these concerned citizens are being duped by the earmark debate," Inhofe wrote of the debate in a piece for National Review Online. "Getting rid of earmarks does not save taxpayers any money, reduces transparency and gives more power to the Obama administration."
Inhofe has made a number of media appearances this week in defense of the practice, and other Republicans — Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.), for instance — have not committed to supporting the DeMint resolution.
Republicans in the Senate will look to settle the debate next week in a conference vote — a vote that's been seen as a test of DeMint's newfound power against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). A majority of the Republicans who participate — probably 46, pending the outcome of the Alaska Senate race — would need to approve the ban.
No comments:
Post a Comment