Mitch McConnell Backs Earmarks Ban
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
/ Win McNameeUpdated 5:10 p.m. Eastern Time
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has endorsed a moratorium on earmarks despite his earlier opposition to a push by Tea Party-backed lawmakers for such a ban in the new Congress.
"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," McConnell said today.
He added: "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."
Tea Party darling Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), with the support of senators backed by the Tea Party movement, last week formally proposed an earmarks ban in the new Congress.
"If adopted, this earmark ban will unite Senate Republicans with House Republicans in taking a stand against wasteful, pork-barrel spending," he said in the statement.
Earmarks are requests by individual lawmakers for funds to be directed to their districts for projects or companies. Earmarking allows lawmakers to get around the bidding process that goes through the executive branch.
On last Sunday's "Face the Nation," McConnell said an earmarks ban "doesn't save any money," a reference to the fact that they account for less than one percent of the overall budget and would thus have little impact on the budget deficit.
He also expressed concerns about an earmarks moratorium giving the White House more control over federal spending, arguing that the issue is "about an argument between the executive branch and the legislative branch over how funds should be spent."
Yet despite those concerns, McConnell today abandoned his opposition.
"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," he said.
"This is no small thing," he added. "Old habits aren't easy to break, but sometimes they must be. And now is such a time."
House Republican leader John Boehner has also promised an earmarks moratorium in the new Congress.
Senate Republicans are expected to take a vote on a conference-wide ban on earmarks during organizational meetings this week. The vote could happen as early as tomorrow afternoon. In addition, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) today announced plans to try to force a vote on an earmark moratorium by the full Congress as early as Wednesday, possibly by bringing it as an amendment to food safety legislation.
"[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid will have an important choice between holding a transparent vote on earmarks and obstructing the American people's desire for fiscal sanity," he said in a statement. "Nothing is more relevant or germane than beginning the hard work of getting our fiscal house in order. No bill should move before Senators vote on this matter."
McConnell's decision is a victory for DeMint and the Tea Party movement in the first post-election standoff between the movement and the establishment GOP.
While the decision allows Republicans to take a stand against what they cast as wasteful spending, it also comes with risks. Because the moratorium would be nonbinding, Republicans could still push for earmarks, exposing them to charges of hypocrisy. Democrats could also force Republicans to vote against popular earmarks in order to remain ideologically consistent.
Senate Democrats have shown little inclination to ban earmarks outright. President Obama has argued that while earmarks are sometimes used wastefully, something he opposes, "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination."
In a statement today, however, the president said "I welcome Senator McConnell's decision to join me and members of both parties who support cracking down on wasteful earmark spending, which we can't afford during these tough economic times."
"As a Senator, I helped eliminate anonymous earmarks, and as President, I've called for new limitations on earmarks and set new, higher standards of transparency and accountability," he said. "But we can't stop with earmarks as they represent only part of the problem. In the days and weeks to come, 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."
Earmarks made up about $14 billion of the budget last year.
Popular in Politics
- FBI director acknowledges domestic drone use 148 Comments
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story" 259 Comments
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 82 Comments
- Next up for Obama: Major effort on climate change
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 596 Comments
- Smooth, on-time Obamacare rollout no sure thing: GAO
- IRS readying to pay $70M in employee bonuses, senator says
"Federal spending is "the highest it's been as a share of our economy in 60 years (and) revenue is the lowest it's been as a share of our economy in 60 years."
---------------------
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that, no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."
Ronald Reagan
Oh, and it was my mistake...the second quote wasnt from Saint Ronnie. It was from JFK. I guess JFK had his own BS, huh??
-paying taxes in their home countries,
- to avoid labor laws and living/minimum wage standards,
-to avoid pollution control laws,
- to exploit the cheap labor of people who live in a state/country where they have no means to defend themselves or vote or have a political opinion without great risk to themselves and their families etc.
Now some of the SAME PEOPLE who complain about having to pay U.S. taxes GLADLY move their factories and businesses to the far away AUTHORITARIAN COMMUNIST NATION OF CHINA and willingly pay taxes to the
Chinese government for the "honor" of expoiting and abusing Chinese land, water, resources, labor and/or people, who have NO VOTE and few civil rights.
Chinese land, water and air is now some of the most polluted on earth from all the multinational manufacturing going on there by various multinational and Chinese national companies/factories who have fled their home countries in the last 15 years. (Google search "water/air pollution in China").
The Chinese version of the E.P.A. has only 230 full-time employees/staff to watch over a nation of 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE !!!!
2/3rds of the 600 billion dollar U.S. trade DEFICIT (400 billion dollars per year) is caused by importing of 15 million barrels of foreign oil into the United States EVERY DAY to make gasoline for 190,000,000 drivers. NOT by reckless government spending as many are now claiming. (the U.S. uses 20 million barrels of oil PER DAY).
This oil trade deficit accumulates in the form of national debt at the rate of 4 TRILLION dollars every 10 years. As the price of oil increases this national debt accumulation accelerates.
This OIL trade deficit and it's resulting NATIONAL DEBT has been accumulating and growing since the 1970's when U.S. domestic supplies of oil in the ground "peaked" and began to decline, forcing increasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil imports. (Google search "peak oil").
Go to Center for Responsive Politics and look at who funds Mitch McConnell's poliical campaigns: Citigroup, Kindred Health Care, Humana, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, UBS AG, Peabody Energy, Brown-Forman Corp (a whiskey company.) Basically you've got the cream of the Wall Street Crap. And remember, wheneve you or your employer pay your health insurance premium, you are giving a political campaign contribution to Mitch McConnel as well.
To be sure, he is now against earmarks, but private, behind closed doors he'll insist in earmarks for himself, and not one else.
No wonder Mitch's signature portraits always feature a creepy smirk across his face. He may bamboozle the public and the media,but he certainly can't fool me.
Why do 48% of American's pay $0 in income tax? I've yet to meet a GOP voter that was one of them.
How do you know how much taxes every voter pays - whether or not they are republicans, democrats, etc?
You sir are extremely wrong on your statement.
Military benefits are not the same as Medicare and SS.
Sure they are - they are ALL socialized.
Just because YOU collect on the benefit, doesn't mean that you get to redefine the term so that "socialized" no longer applies to you!
Medicare, etc are given out...not for services rendered.
My company pays my employees both in pay and benefits. The isnt being "socialized." They are getting what they earned.
Military members are being paid in pay and benefits for their work.
SS and Medicare are not payment for work.
It is hard to understand how you cannot get that!
Pay and benefits the military receive is for SERVICES RENDERED. They are being paid for their work.
Just as someone that patches a hole in a highway gets paid for his/her work.
Hey dummy - what's 1% of $1.3 TRILLION? (The annual budget for 2010.)
$13 BILLION isn't a lot of money?!?!
By whose standards?!?!