It makes sense that the first tea party-versus-the-GOP dust-up would be over congressional earmarks -- because this is really a dumb debate. I know that sounds uncivil and condescending. But it's the truth.
Tea party Republicans seeking a suspension of earmarks are conning their followers. Perhaps not purposefully. They may not understand the matter. Here's the key fact: those much-denounced earmarks have little to do with the level of government spending. They are legislative tools used after Congress approves funding for a federal agency. Think of an earmark as a post-it note that a House member or senator sticks onto a spending bill that orders how a slice of the funds will be used.
Here's how it works: Congress, say, passes a bill to spend $10 billion on improving the highway infrastructure. Standard operating procedure would be for the experts at the Transportation Department to figure out how best to use this money. But a representative or senator with clout, who wants to make sure his district or state gets a piece of that pie, can attach an earmark, directing that a specific amount of that pot has to be spent on a specific project (usually in his or her district or state) -- like a bridge to nowhere.
This is not a fair and deliberative process. Earmarks are not voted on; they're horse-traded. They deserve criticism. But they do not drive government spending. Earmarked funds represent a teeny percentage of the overall budget. And, again, it's money already appropriated. Get rid of them, and you don't save much.
Yet Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the tea party's godfather in the Senate, is leading a band of incumbent and newly elected GOP senators in a crusade against earmarks. This crew includes the incoming tea party-ish Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. (Paul, though, has sent conflicting signals.) DeMint claims he has a total of 13 senators willing to vote with him on a measure that would forbid GOP senators from earmarking funds. (It's up to the Democrats to create their own rules for earmarks.) As of Thursday, DeMint was about 10 votes shy of victory.
Enter the Republican establishment. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the GOP leader, has made it obvious that he's against these upstarts. And Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), an arch-conservative, has been leading the counter-assault against the DeMint gang. Inhofe has argued that dumping earmarks would benefit President Barack Obama. And he's right. Without earmarks, the executive branch gets to decide how to use appropriated funds. It's not only that McConnell and Inhofe want to preserve a senatorial privilege that allows legislators to bring home the bacon. They contend that this is fundamentally a fight over the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. It does help them to wrap self-interest in a noble cause. And shouldn't tea partiers not want the secret Muslim socialist to possess absolute control over the dissemination of federal funds?
Yet Inhofe -- who calls climate change a giant hoax -- can't keep his own crazy in check. While arguing in favor of earmarks, Inhofe this week said, "The problem is the public has been brainwashed" by "very liberal members of Congress" into thinking that "earmarks are somehow all bad." Liberals? Earmarks have mainly been a conservative bugaboo for years. But now that the issue is dividing Republicans due to tea party fanaticism, Inhofe is blaming liberals for the mess. Is he suggesting that DeMint and the tea partiers have been hypnotized by George Soros? (Please, don't put that question to Glenn Beck.)
It's not surprising that Inhofe would insist that liberals, not misguided tea partiers, are responsible for the earmarks fuss. A year ago, during the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen, I asked Inhofe who was responsible for perpetuating the supposed global scam that had brought tens of thousands of delegates, policy advocates, and scientists to this session. Without missing a beat and with a completely straight face, he said, "the Hollywood elite." Yes, Barbra Streisand had orchestrated all of this. Surely, if liberals could fool all those people into trekking to Copenhagen in the winter (!) to spend two weeks on climate change, they're capable of mesmerizing the American public into believing earmarks are wrong.
So this is what we have: tea party GOPers treating earmarks reform as a crucial means to reining in federal spending. (They are not). And the establishment Republicans' lead champion of earmarks claiming the campaign against them is a liberal plot. (It is not.)
Both sides in this silly tussle are insulting tea partiers. In decrying earmarks, DeMint appears to be throwing the TPers crumbs with the expectation they will be foolish enough to consider it red meat. And Inhofe is implying that tea partiers are so uninformed that they've been led astray on this issue by the diabolical left. Can both DeMint and Inhofe be right about the tea partiers? Maybe so. (To get the real low-down on the basics of the real government spending debate, see my colleague Kevin Drum's highly effective response to the draft proposal released this week by the co-chairs of the deficit commission.)
It's just over a week since the midterm elections, and the GOP is already having trouble absorbing its brave-new-world winners. It's not yet apparent who will prevail in the earmarks showdown. (The smart move usually is to bet on the preservation of senatorial privilege.) But in this debate, both sides are playing the tea partiers for suckers.
You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.
Tea party Republicans seeking a suspension of earmarks are conning their followers. Perhaps not purposefully. They may not understand the matter. Here's the key fact: those much-denounced earmarks have little to do with the level of government spending. They are legislative tools used after Congress approves funding for a federal agency. Think of an earmark as a post-it note that a House member or senator sticks onto a spending bill that orders how a slice of the funds will be used.
Here's how it works: Congress, say, passes a bill to spend $10 billion on improving the highway infrastructure. Standard operating procedure would be for the experts at the Transportation Department to figure out how best to use this money. But a representative or senator with clout, who wants to make sure his district or state gets a piece of that pie, can attach an earmark, directing that a specific amount of that pot has to be spent on a specific project (usually in his or her district or state) -- like a bridge to nowhere.
This is not a fair and deliberative process. Earmarks are not voted on; they're horse-traded. They deserve criticism. But they do not drive government spending. Earmarked funds represent a teeny percentage of the overall budget. And, again, it's money already appropriated. Get rid of them, and you don't save much. Yet Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the tea party's godfather in the Senate, is leading a band of incumbent and newly elected GOP senators in a crusade against earmarks. This crew includes the incoming tea party-ish Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. (Paul, though, has sent conflicting signals.) DeMint claims he has a total of 13 senators willing to vote with him on a measure that would forbid GOP senators from earmarking funds. (It's up to the Democrats to create their own rules for earmarks.) As of Thursday, DeMint was about 10 votes shy of victory.
Enter the Republican establishment. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the GOP leader, has made it obvious that he's against these upstarts. And Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), an arch-conservative, has been leading the counter-assault against the DeMint gang. Inhofe has argued that dumping earmarks would benefit President Barack Obama. And he's right. Without earmarks, the executive branch gets to decide how to use appropriated funds. It's not only that McConnell and Inhofe want to preserve a senatorial privilege that allows legislators to bring home the bacon. They contend that this is fundamentally a fight over the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. It does help them to wrap self-interest in a noble cause. And shouldn't tea partiers not want the secret Muslim socialist to possess absolute control over the dissemination of federal funds?
Yet Inhofe -- who calls climate change a giant hoax -- can't keep his own crazy in check. While arguing in favor of earmarks, Inhofe this week said, "The problem is the public has been brainwashed" by "very liberal members of Congress" into thinking that "earmarks are somehow all bad." Liberals? Earmarks have mainly been a conservative bugaboo for years. But now that the issue is dividing Republicans due to tea party fanaticism, Inhofe is blaming liberals for the mess. Is he suggesting that DeMint and the tea partiers have been hypnotized by George Soros? (Please, don't put that question to Glenn Beck.)
It's not surprising that Inhofe would insist that liberals, not misguided tea partiers, are responsible for the earmarks fuss. A year ago, during the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen, I asked Inhofe who was responsible for perpetuating the supposed global scam that had brought tens of thousands of delegates, policy advocates, and scientists to this session. Without missing a beat and with a completely straight face, he said, "the Hollywood elite." Yes, Barbra Streisand had orchestrated all of this. Surely, if liberals could fool all those people into trekking to Copenhagen in the winter (!) to spend two weeks on climate change, they're capable of mesmerizing the American public into believing earmarks are wrong.
So this is what we have: tea party GOPers treating earmarks reform as a crucial means to reining in federal spending. (They are not). And the establishment Republicans' lead champion of earmarks claiming the campaign against them is a liberal plot. (It is not.)
Both sides in this silly tussle are insulting tea partiers. In decrying earmarks, DeMint appears to be throwing the TPers crumbs with the expectation they will be foolish enough to consider it red meat. And Inhofe is implying that tea partiers are so uninformed that they've been led astray on this issue by the diabolical left. Can both DeMint and Inhofe be right about the tea partiers? Maybe so. (To get the real low-down on the basics of the real government spending debate, see my colleague Kevin Drum's highly effective response to the draft proposal released this week by the co-chairs of the deficit commission.)
It's just over a week since the midterm elections, and the GOP is already having trouble absorbing its brave-new-world winners. It's not yet apparent who will prevail in the earmarks showdown. (The smart move usually is to bet on the preservation of senatorial privilege.) But in this debate, both sides are playing the tea partiers for suckers.
You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment