2012 Republicans virtually united behind earmarks ban
- 11/15/10 04:04 PM ET
The bulk of the Republican candidates for president have expressed support for the ban on earmarks that's making its way through Congress.
The proposed moratorium on earmarking, the practice of directing spending in legislation to particular projects, hasn't divided the presidential candidates the way it's split GOP lawmakers.
Seven possible contenders for the Republican nomination in 2012 have expressed support for the congressional ban, while only one possible candidate — Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — has openly embraced the practice.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) threw his support Monday behind a moratorium on earmarks that's been proposed by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another possible candidate for president.
They're not the only possible Republican presidential challengers who support a moratorium, though. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) are all on the record in favor of a moratorium or outright ban of the practice.
A spokesman for Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) said Monday that the governor supports the ban.
"Of course Governor Pawlenty supports the Republicans' ban on Congressional earmarks," said Alex Conant. "It's important that the Republicans we send to Washington govern as they campaigned, and fight wasteful spending."
Huckabee and Romney's professed support for the moratorium comes Monday at a watershed moment for earmarking. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) announced this afternoon that he would support the ban after having previously defended the practice. His support all but ensures a GOP ban on earmarks in both the House and Senate in the next Congress.
Two possible GOP presidential candidates have so far not declared any position on the earmarks ban. Sen. John Thune (S.D.) and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour appear to have no official position on the practice. Spokesmen for both Thune and Barbour did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
Unintended consequence watch: could the earmark moratoriums end up forcing lawmakers to make nice with exec branch?
Rep. Ryan talks about earmarks and tax cuts......
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s endorsement of an earmark ban is the latest indication of the clout fiscal conservatives will wield in the new Congress.
By convincing the Kentucky Republican, once the most formidable opponent of a GOP earmark ban, that a moratorium was the right course, newly emboldened conservatives showed they will not be shy about tackling politically divisive issues.
Combined with strong House Republican support for a ban, lawmakers who continue to favor earmarks could have a hard time carving out money for special projects.
That is not to suggest earmarks are dead and gone. Senate Democrats could still add language for parochial interests, although President Obama signaled that he could find some common ground with Republicans to cut earmark spending.
Obama praised McConnell for his support of an earmark ban and pressured his own party to stop adding them to bills.
“We can’t stop with earmarks, as they represent only part of the problem,” Obama said. “I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to not only end earmark spending, but to find other ways to bring down our deficits for our children.”
Amid a Republican resurgence fueled by voter concern about federal spending, the effort to curb earmarks showed momentum across the political spectrum as Congress convened for the first time since the Nov. 2 elections.
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., announced that he wouldn’t request earmarks and that he intends to push for an overhaul of the appropriations process.
“We’ve become so focused on pet projects that holding government accountable and being good stewards of the public dollar seem to be an afterthought,” Udall said. “In fact, lawmakers are so afraid of losing earmarked funding that they’re sometimes pressured into supporting a vicious cycle of increased spending.”
Other Senate Democrats were not so quick to agree. Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, said he plans to continue putting earmarks into spending bills even if Republicans do not. “This is something that I think is the prerogative of Congress,” he said.
The GOP moratoriums are voluntary efforts. Several House Republicans, including Ron Paul of Texas, continued to request earmarks this year in spite of the existing ban in the party’s House caucus.
This year could see an end to that sort of independence, depending on how the new Republican majority decides to enforce an expected extension of the earmark ban. Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, who is poised to become Speaker in January, strongly praised the Senate GOP move.
Boehner also quickly seized the GOP leaders’ new unity on earmarks to criticize Democratic spending plans. Democrats are working on a fiscal 2011 omnibus spending bill for the lame-duck session that would cap discretionary spending at the $1.108 trillion level demanded by Senate Republicans.
But Republicans have said that they would rather wait until January to wrap up fiscal 2011 appropriations, when they will have more control of the process and can slim down spending for the budget year that started Oct. 1.
DeMint’s Proposal Likely to Win
With McConnell’s backing, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is all but certain to see Senate Republicans on Tuesday adopt his non-binding resolution to ban earmarks as they meet to organize for the 112th Congress.
As recently as last week, DeMint’s resolution faced resistance. Attitudes appear to be changing, though, with many soon-to-be Republican freshmen having arrived in Washington this week for orientation.
Though earmarks represent a small fraction of the federal budget, for critics they are a symbol of what they consider Congress’ free-spending ways.
“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,” said McConnell, a veteran appropriator and earmarker, in explaining his support for DeMint’s proposed ban. “This is no small thing. Old habits aren’t easy to break, but sometimes they must be.”
DeMint ally Tom Coburn, R-Okla., would like to go further than a voluntary ban. He is pushing to force the entire Senate to hold a public vote on a binding earmark moratorium on the first legislative vehicle to move through the chamber.
Such a vote could happen as early as Wednesday, when the Senate is scheduled to vote on a motion to proceed to food safety legislation (S 510), Coburn said.
“Nothing is more relevant or germane than beginning the hard work of getting our fiscal house in order,” Coburn said. “No bill should move before senators vote on this matter, particularly a bill that continues the borrow-and-spend status quo voters rejected.”
Coburn may find some Democratic support for his effort, particularly from more-junior senators. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., has in the past voted with Republicans on measures that sought to limit earmarks.
While supporting DeMint’s bid for an earmark ban, some Republicans such as McConnell and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee expressed concern that it would end up giving more power over the federal purse to Obama. Still, McConnell and Alexander endorsed the ban, citing the need to address rising federal debt.
“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,” McConnell said.
An End to Horse Trading?
Critics of earmarks have long argued that they sway spending beyond the immediate injections of cash that they provide to lawmakers’ favored constituent groups.
Bundling many earmarks into a bill also may make members less willing to criticize a colleague’s requests, as it could open their own to more scrutiny, said Diana Evans, author of “Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress” and a professor of political science at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.
With control of the House and greater sway in the Senate, Republican members might be less inclined — at least in the months ahead — to engage in the kind of political trade-offs with Democrats that have produced deals on earmark spending in the past.
“The question really is to what extent Republicans are going to be inclined to engage in horse trading anyway,” Evans said.
The prospect of a Senate GOP earmark ban seemed solid enough on Monday that a coalition of business groups wrote to House Republican leaders and to DeMint, pleading their case for an exemption.
House Republicans earlier this year included tariff suspensions in their earmark moratorium, which put them in an bind when it came time to vote on a package of miscellaneous duty suspensions.
Congress routinely writes limited tariff reduction bills at the behest of U.S. manufacturers seeking to import products they are unable to source in the United States, like certain complex chemicals.
The provisions are vetted by the administration, approved by both parties and cost less than $500,000 each. Until this year, they had rarely been labeled earmarks.
-- Kerry Young and Paul M. Krawzak, CQ Staff
The proposed moratorium on earmarking, the practice of directing spending in legislation to particular projects, hasn't divided the presidential candidates the way it's split GOP lawmakers.
Seven possible contenders for the Republican nomination in 2012 have expressed support for the congressional ban, while only one possible candidate — Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — has openly embraced the practice.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) threw his support Monday behind a moratorium on earmarks that's been proposed by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another possible candidate for president.
They're not the only possible Republican presidential challengers who support a moratorium, though. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) are all on the record in favor of a moratorium or outright ban of the practice.
A spokesman for Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) said Monday that the governor supports the ban.
"Of course Governor Pawlenty supports the Republicans' ban on Congressional earmarks," said Alex Conant. "It's important that the Republicans we send to Washington govern as they campaigned, and fight wasteful spending."
Huckabee and Romney's professed support for the moratorium comes Monday at a watershed moment for earmarking. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) announced this afternoon that he would support the ban after having previously defended the practice. His support all but ensures a GOP ban on earmarks in both the House and Senate in the next Congress.
Two possible GOP presidential candidates have so far not declared any position on the earmarks ban. Sen. John Thune (S.D.) and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour appear to have no official position on the practice. Spokesmen for both Thune and Barbour did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
Unintended consequence watch: could the earmark moratoriums end up forcing lawmakers to make nice with exec branch?
Rep. Ryan talks about earmarks and tax cuts......
Conservatives score win on earmarks
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s endorsement of an earmark ban is the latest indication of the clout fiscal conservatives will wield in the new Congress.
By convincing the Kentucky Republican, once the most formidable opponent of a GOP earmark ban, that a moratorium was the right course, newly emboldened conservatives showed they will not be shy about tackling politically divisive issues.
Combined with strong House Republican support for a ban, lawmakers who continue to favor earmarks could have a hard time carving out money for special projects.
That is not to suggest earmarks are dead and gone. Senate Democrats could still add language for parochial interests, although President Obama signaled that he could find some common ground with Republicans to cut earmark spending.
Obama praised McConnell for his support of an earmark ban and pressured his own party to stop adding them to bills.
“We can’t stop with earmarks, as they represent only part of the problem,” Obama said. “I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to not only end earmark spending, but to find other ways to bring down our deficits for our children.”
Amid a Republican resurgence fueled by voter concern about federal spending, the effort to curb earmarks showed momentum across the political spectrum as Congress convened for the first time since the Nov. 2 elections.
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., announced that he wouldn’t request earmarks and that he intends to push for an overhaul of the appropriations process.
“We’ve become so focused on pet projects that holding government accountable and being good stewards of the public dollar seem to be an afterthought,” Udall said. “In fact, lawmakers are so afraid of losing earmarked funding that they’re sometimes pressured into supporting a vicious cycle of increased spending.”
Other Senate Democrats were not so quick to agree. Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, said he plans to continue putting earmarks into spending bills even if Republicans do not. “This is something that I think is the prerogative of Congress,” he said.
The GOP moratoriums are voluntary efforts. Several House Republicans, including Ron Paul of Texas, continued to request earmarks this year in spite of the existing ban in the party’s House caucus.
This year could see an end to that sort of independence, depending on how the new Republican majority decides to enforce an expected extension of the earmark ban. Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, who is poised to become Speaker in January, strongly praised the Senate GOP move.
Boehner also quickly seized the GOP leaders’ new unity on earmarks to criticize Democratic spending plans. Democrats are working on a fiscal 2011 omnibus spending bill for the lame-duck session that would cap discretionary spending at the $1.108 trillion level demanded by Senate Republicans.
But Republicans have said that they would rather wait until January to wrap up fiscal 2011 appropriations, when they will have more control of the process and can slim down spending for the budget year that started Oct. 1.
DeMint’s Proposal Likely to Win
With McConnell’s backing, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is all but certain to see Senate Republicans on Tuesday adopt his non-binding resolution to ban earmarks as they meet to organize for the 112th Congress.
As recently as last week, DeMint’s resolution faced resistance. Attitudes appear to be changing, though, with many soon-to-be Republican freshmen having arrived in Washington this week for orientation.
Though earmarks represent a small fraction of the federal budget, for critics they are a symbol of what they consider Congress’ free-spending ways.
“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,” said McConnell, a veteran appropriator and earmarker, in explaining his support for DeMint’s proposed ban. “This is no small thing. Old habits aren’t easy to break, but sometimes they must be.”
DeMint ally Tom Coburn, R-Okla., would like to go further than a voluntary ban. He is pushing to force the entire Senate to hold a public vote on a binding earmark moratorium on the first legislative vehicle to move through the chamber.
Such a vote could happen as early as Wednesday, when the Senate is scheduled to vote on a motion to proceed to food safety legislation (S 510), Coburn said.
“Nothing is more relevant or germane than beginning the hard work of getting our fiscal house in order,” Coburn said. “No bill should move before senators vote on this matter, particularly a bill that continues the borrow-and-spend status quo voters rejected.”
Coburn may find some Democratic support for his effort, particularly from more-junior senators. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., has in the past voted with Republicans on measures that sought to limit earmarks.
While supporting DeMint’s bid for an earmark ban, some Republicans such as McConnell and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee expressed concern that it would end up giving more power over the federal purse to Obama. Still, McConnell and Alexander endorsed the ban, citing the need to address rising federal debt.
“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,” McConnell said.
An End to Horse Trading?
Critics of earmarks have long argued that they sway spending beyond the immediate injections of cash that they provide to lawmakers’ favored constituent groups.
Bundling many earmarks into a bill also may make members less willing to criticize a colleague’s requests, as it could open their own to more scrutiny, said Diana Evans, author of “Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress” and a professor of political science at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.
With control of the House and greater sway in the Senate, Republican members might be less inclined — at least in the months ahead — to engage in the kind of political trade-offs with Democrats that have produced deals on earmark spending in the past.
“The question really is to what extent Republicans are going to be inclined to engage in horse trading anyway,” Evans said.
The prospect of a Senate GOP earmark ban seemed solid enough on Monday that a coalition of business groups wrote to House Republican leaders and to DeMint, pleading their case for an exemption.
House Republicans earlier this year included tariff suspensions in their earmark moratorium, which put them in an bind when it came time to vote on a package of miscellaneous duty suspensions.
Congress routinely writes limited tariff reduction bills at the behest of U.S. manufacturers seeking to import products they are unable to source in the United States, like certain complex chemicals.
The provisions are vetted by the administration, approved by both parties and cost less than $500,000 each. Until this year, they had rarely been labeled earmarks.
-- Kerry Young and Paul M. Krawzak, CQ Staff
No comments:
Post a Comment