Showing posts with label Earmark Moratorium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Earmark Moratorium. Show all posts

Saturday, February 03, 2018

Coleman Comments on Earmarks


Coleman Comments on Earmarks

Andy Coleman, candidate running for the Republican nomination in Oklahoma's First Congressional District, released the following statement regarding earmarks:

Bringing back earmarks will only create more reckless spending by Congress and balloon our debt to even higher levels.  Right now Congress needs to be finding ways to cut spending, not accelerate it. 

Because of that, I am 100% opposed to earmarks.

Earmarks are a favor factory for insiders and lobbyists that benefit special interests at the expense of taxpayers. Earmarks will produce more pork barrel spending that will ultimately drive up deficits and debt.

Over my life, I’ve stood up for what I believe in, and backed it up with action — even if it came at terrible risk.  I’m a battle-tested conservative who believes earmarks are flat-out wrong.  In Congress, I’ll push back against any effort to bring them back, and will fight to rein-in redline spending. I’m not going to back down from tough fights.


Bloggers note: as far as I know, Coleman is the first candidate in the 1st Congressional District to make such a public statement against reviving earmarks. In contrast, 2nd District Congressman Markwayne Mullin spoke to a recent House committee meeting on the topic, pleading for earmarks to be brought back.

Tuesday, January 09, 2018

Club for Growth comments on Trump, House GOP interest in bringing back earmarks



Washington, DC – Today, Club for Growth President David McIntosh offered the following statement upon news of House Republicans’ interest in bringing back earmarks:

“If Republicans bring back earmarks, then it virtually guarantees that they will lose the House, stated Club for Growth President David McIntosh.

“Bringing back earmarks is the antithesis of draining the swamp.  Earmarks will only benefit the special interests that grow government at the expense of working men and women.”

Friday, November 14, 2014

Are House and Senate Republicans bringing back Earmarks?

This morning, Erick Erickson of RedState.com posted concerns about the possible return of earmarking under the new Republican majority in Congress. I recently was speaking with a top Senate aide who said almost the exact same thing. We definitely need to keep pressure on Congressional Republicans to maintain the earmark ban.


Erick Erickson, RedState.com

Sources in both the House and Senate are expressing grave concern to me that Republicans are about to legalize bribery. If you will recall, several years ago after a host of arrests of members of Congress, indictments, and bridges to nowhere, public outrage caused Congress to ban earmarks.

The earmarks were serving as bribery. Politicians would get earmarks sent to state and local public institutions and congressional leaders would grant and withhold earmarks as bribes to get congressmen to vote particular ways.

Senate Republicans are dragging their feet and there are, according to Senate sources, strong signals the GOP intends to end the Senate earmarks ban. Just yesterday, Senate Republicans refused to approve the earmarks ban.

On the House side, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-AL) is introducing an amendment to House rules that would allow an exception to the earmarks ban for “State, locality (including county and city governments), or a public utility or other public entity.” A House source tells me Speaker Boehner has been firmly committed to keeping the earmarks ban, but worries other Republicans may latch on to Rogers’ exception.

It is worth noting that virtually all earmarks go to “State[s], localit[ies] (including county and city governments), [and] public utilit[ies].”

With Senators Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint out of the picture, the Senate seems more likely than the House to move forward on this issue. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) referred to earmarks at “the gateway drug” for big spending. The earmarks themselves were often relatively small, but they were given by leadership to members of Congress as a form of bribery to induce those members to vote for much larger spending packages.

It would be a shame for either the House or Senate to give up on the earmarks ban — particularly when outrage over Republican behavior related, in part, to corruption induced through earmarks led to their devastating losses in 2006.

You can connect to your member of Congress through the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and express your support for continuing the earmarks ban.

Friday, May 02, 2014

Coburn warns against renewed call for earmarking


Porky's II: The Earmarkers Strike Back
Restoring earmarks in today's Congress would be like opening a bar tab 
for a bunch of recovering alcoholics.

By TOM COBURN

Remember the $223 million in federal funds earmarked in 2005 for the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska? The project stalled but the public outrage it sparked led to a 2011 decision by Congress to end earmarking. Well, it looks like the bridge-to-nowhere crowd is ready to get the scaffolding out again, with lobbyists and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle calling for a return to earmarks and pork-barrel politics.

The powerful House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R., Ky.) has called the ban a "bad idea." Two Republican candidates in Mississippi—Sen. Thad Cochran and House candidate Gene Taylor —are making a return to pork part of their platform. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) recently tried to dismiss the bipartisan ban as a fringe, right-wing idea that has led to gridlock. "It was a tea party reform," Sen. Durbin told reporters in Springfield, Ill., on April 14 after a speech to Teamsters. "They came in and eliminated it and what they did is take the glue out of a federal transportation bill. That was the glue that held everybody together."

Mr. Durbin said he longs for the day "when we get back to the point where members of Congress are sitting down with a common goal—let's pass this bill, let's make sure there is enough money in this bill, let's find the sources of revenue necessary for this bill—you know, it creates a much better and more positive feeling."

The "glue" is pork and the "positive feeling" that Mr. Durbin is referring to is the joy of spending other people's money. For politicians, this sensation is highly addictive. It's why I called earmarks the gateway drug to Washington's spending addiction after fighting my own party's earmarks in the 1990s.

The porkers' core argument—that Congress needs earmarks to pass good bills that wouldn't pass otherwise—is ludicrous. Pork crowds out higher priority needs. On transportation bills, for instance, the Transportation Department's Inspector General told us in 2007 that the presence of earmarks meant members' pet projects were funded ahead of more important projects such as repairing structurally deficient bridges, which now number 63,000 or 10% of our nation's bridges. There is a higher chance the bridge you cross today on your way to work could collapse thanks in part to Congress's legacy of perverse priorities.
Members like to say they know their district's needs best but they are most skilled at putting their political needs first. Plus, we already have an institution dedicated to local projects. It is called local government. Transportation pork, in particular, proved that the good congressman or congresswoman isn't the one who sends money back to the state but the one who keeps money from leaving the state in the first place.

Read the rest of Coburn's op-ed here.

Senator Coburn and Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) are circulating a letter on Capitol Hill in support of the current earmark ban, and asking members of the House and Senate to sign on. You can read that letter here. Congressman James Lankford was one of the first to sign the letter.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Muskogee Politico Roundup

Absurd: Some in the media and blogosphere have attacked Gov. Mary Fallin for allegedly plagiarizing a KOSU story about Pearl Harbor survivor Ed Vezey in her inaugural address. First of all, if that was plagiarizing (which it wasn't), that was an awfully poor job. Second, Ed Vezey has told his story to countless people, and I'd assume that it's pretty much the same every time. Same people, same places, same history, same storyteller. Third, I shot video this past summer at the unveiling of the mast from the U.S.S. Oklahoma here at Muskogee's War Memorial Park, where both Vezey and then-Congresswoman Fallin spoke. They both mentioned a ceremony at Pearl Harbor where they both attended, spoke, and talked with other U.S.S. Oklahoma veterans. Fallin most likely heard Vezey's story there in Hawaii, as I'm sure she did again at Muskogee. Most of the same people are also attacking Fallin for flubbing up her swearing-in oath. Again, ridiculous.

Porker: The taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste has nominated Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Tulsa) as a finalist for their 2010 Porker of the Year contest, for his very public and adamant defense of earmarking. Congratulations, Senator, on joining a prestigious club. Good luck in the voting...

Unbelievable: Far-left Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is suing the U.S. House cafeteria for biting into an olive pit in his sandwich - in 2008. The twice-failed presidential candidate is suing for $150,00, and believes he "is entitled to damages for future dental and medical expenses and to compensate him for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment." I'm at a loss for words......

Confession: I did not watch the President's State of the Union address, nor did I see anything but snippets of Paul Ryan or Michele Bachmann's response. And frankly, I don't really see what the uproar over the "mixed" seating was about. Everyone knows that the party in power applauds every other line of a State of the Union speech, and members of the party not in the White House sit on their hands. Sitting next to Chuck Schumer for one hour-long speech does not make you a Schumer clone, or affect how you vote the next day.

Saturday, December 04, 2010

Senate Earmark Ban: GOP Hall of Shame

This is old news now, since it happened while I was on vacation, but it deserves a post all the same. On Tuesday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) brought a ban on earmarks to the floor of the United States Senate; the proposal failed 39-56, with 8 Republicans voting against it (with the majority of Democrats) and 7 Democrats voting for it (with the majority of Republicans).

Republicans in the House have already pledged to ban earmarks, and the Senate GOP has adopted a "voluntary" ban on earmarks within the caucus, and yet, in spite of the tremendous public outcry over earmarks and the need for Republicans to finally "get it", eight GOP senators decided to thwart the will of the people, and voted with the liberals.

Here is the Senate Republicans Hall of Shame from this vote:

Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Lost re-election this year

 Dick Lugar (R-IN)
Up for re-election in 2012


 George Voinovich (R-OH)
Did not run for re-election

 Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Up for re-election in 2014

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Lost re-election in 2010 primary, presumed general election victor as write-in

 Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Won re-election this year


 Susan Collins (R-ME)
Up for re-election in 2014


Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Up for re-election in 2014


The following Democrats supported Coburn's earmark ban: Evan Bayh (D-IN), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Bill Belson (D-FL), Mark Udall (D-CO) and Mark Warner (D-VA). Bayh did not run for re-election, and Feingold lost his re-election bid.

Senators Kit Bond (R-MO), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) missed the vote.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Sarah Palin's Open Letter to GOP Congressional Freshmen


An Open Letter to Republican Freshmen Members of Congress
by former Gov. Sarah Palin

Welcome to all Republican Freshmen and congratulations!

Congratulations to all of you for your contribution to this historic election, and for the contributions I am certain you will make to our country in the next two years. Your victory was hard fought, and the success belongs entirely to you and the staff and volunteers who spent countless hours working for this chance to put government back on the side of the people. Now you will come to Washington to serve your nation and leave your mark on history by reining in government spending, preserving our freedoms at home, and restoring America’s leadership abroad. Some of you have asked for my thoughts on how best to proceed in the weeks and months ahead and how best to advance an agenda that can move our country forward. I have a simple answer: stick to the principles that propelled your campaigns. When you take your oath to support and defend our Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of your office, remember that present and future generations of “We the People” are counting on you to stand by that oath. Never forget the people who sent you to Washington. Never forget the trust they placed in you to do the right thing.

The task before you is daunting because so much damage has been done in the last two years, but I believe you have the chance to achieve great things.

Republicans campaigned on a promise to rein in out-of-control government spending and to repeal and replace the massive, burdensome, and unwanted health care law President Obama and the Democrat Congress passed earlier this year in defiance of the will of the majority of the American people. These are promises that you must keep. Obamacare is a job-killer, a regulatory nightmare, and an enormous unfunded mandate. The American people don’t want it and we can’t afford it. We ask, with all due respect, that you remember your job will be to work to replace this legislation with real reform that relies on free market principles and patient-centered policies. The first step is, of course, to defund Obamacare.

You’ve also got to be deadly serious about cutting the deficit. Despite what some would like us to believe, tax cuts didn’t get us into the mess we’re in. Government spending did. Tough decisions need to be made about reducing government spending. The longer we put them off, the worse it will get. We need to start by cutting non-essential spending. That includes stopping earmarks (because abuse of the earmark process created the "gateway-drug" that allowed backroom deals and bloated budgets), canceling all further spending on the failed Stimulus program, and rolling back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels. You can do more, but this would be a good start.

In order to avert a fiscal disaster, we will also need to check the growth of spending on our entitlement programs. That will be a huge challenge, but it must be confronted head on. We must do it in a humane way that honors the government’s current commitments to our fellow Americans while also keeping faith with future generations. We cannot rob from our children and grandchildren’s tomorrow to pay for our unchecked spending today. Beyond that, we need to reform the way Congress conducts business in order to make it procedurally easier to cut spending than to increase it. We need to encourage zero-based budgeting practices in D.C. like the kind fiscally conservative mayors and governors utilize to balance their budgets and reduce unnecessary spending.

There in the insulated and isolated Beltway you will be far removed from the economic pain felt by so many Americans who are out of work. Please remember that if we want real job growth, we must create a stable investment climate by ending the tidal wave of overly burdensome regulations coming out of Washington. Businesses need certainty – and freedom that incentivizes competition – to grow and expand our workforce.

The last thing our small businesses need is tax hikes. It falls to the current Democrat-controlled Congress to decide on the future of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. If it does not permanently renew all of them, you should move quickly to do so in the new Congress. It would remove from households and businesses the threat of a possible $3.8 trillion tax hike hitting all Americans at the worst possible moment, with our economy struggling to recover from a deep recession! You must continue to remind Democrats that the people they are dismissing as “rich” are the small business owners who create up to 70% of all jobs in this country!

Another issue of vital importance is border security. Americans expect our leadership in Washington to act now to secure our borders. Don’t fall for the claims of those who suggest that we can’t secure our borders until we simultaneously deal with the illegal immigrants already here. Let’s deal with securing the border first. That alone is a huge challenge that has been ignored for far too long.

On foreign policy and national security, I urge you to stick to our principles: strong defense, free trade, nurturing allies, and steadfast opposition to America’s enemies.  We are the most powerful country on earth and the world is better off because of it.  Our president does not seem to understand this. If we withdraw from the world, the world will become a much more dangerous place. You must push President Obama to finish the job right in Iraq and get the job done in Afghanistan, otherwise we who are war-weary will forever question why America’s finest are sent overseas to make the ultimate sacrifice with no clear commitment to victory from those who send them. You should be prepared to stand with the President against Iran’s nuclear aspirations using whatever means necessary to ensure the mullahs in Tehran do not get their hands on nuclear weapons. And you can stand with the Iranian people who oppose the tyrannical rule of the clerics and concretely support their efforts to win their freedom – even if the President does not.

You need to say no to cutting the necessities in our defense budget when we are engaged in two wars and face so many threats – from Islamic extremists to a nuclear Iran to a rising China. As Ronald Reagan said, “We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.” You will also have the opportunity to push job-creating free trade agreements with allies like Colombia and South Korea. You can stand with allies like Israel, not criticize them. You can let the President know what you believe – Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement. And for those of you joining the United States Senate, don’t listen to desperate politically-motivated arguments about the need for hasty consideration of the “New START” treaty.  Insist on your right to patient and careful deliberation of New START to address very real concerns about verification, missile defense, and modernization of our nuclear infrastructure. No New START in the lame duck!

You can stand against misguided proposals to try dangerous, evil terrorists in the US; precipitously close the Guantanamo prison; and a return to the failed policies of the past in treating the war on terror as a law enforcement problem. Finally, you have a platform to express the support of the American people for all those around the world seeking their freedom that God has bestowed within all mankind’s being – from Burma and Egypt to Russia and Venezuela – because the spread of liberty increases our own security. You, freshmen lawmakers, can and will be powerful voices in support of foreign policies that protect our interests and promote our values! Thank you for being willing to fight for our values and our freedom!

In all this, you should extend a hand to President Obama and Democrats in Congress. After this election, they may finally be prepared to work with Republicans on some of these issues for the good of the country. And if not, we will all be looking forward to 2012.

Remember that some in the media will love you when you stray from the time-tested truths that built America into the most exceptional nation on earth. When the Left in the media pat you on the back, quickly reassess where you are and readjust, for the liberals' praise is a warning bell you must heed. Trust me on that.

I and most Americans are so excited for you. Working together, we have every right to be optimistic about our future. We can be hopeful because real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the everyday Americans who make our country exceptional. These are the men and women who sent you to Washington. May your work and leadership honor their faith in you.

With sincere congratulations and a big Alaskan heart,

Sarah Palin

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Inhofe on Earmarks: 2008 and 2010


2008: U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe cosponsors U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint’s one-year earmark moratorium. (note: Inhofe was running for re-election in 2008)

2010:  U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe is one of the most vehement and public opponents to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint's two-year earmark moratorium that is identical to the moratorium that House Republicans will put in place once the new GOP majority is sworn in.

Which one is it, Senator? You can't have it both ways.


While we're on the earmarks topic, OUDaily.com had the following graphic on a story today: