BY: Bill Laforge
Yesterday the Senate Republican conference agreed on a two-year moratorium on earmarks. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell reluctantly changed his position of supporting earmarks, went along with the party’s conservative wing, and embraced the idea of a moratorium, thus ensuring the endorsement of the Republican caucus, and avoiding a bitter and devisive intra-party battle. This is all in reaction to the election and to voter interests in the government, especially the Congress, doing everything possible to reduce spending and get the financial house in order. Congressional Republican leaders feel it is necessary to restore trust in government by the American people.
However, in reality, it is a mere symbolic gesture…a political reaction and a “feel-good” outcome for politicians who believe that they must listen to the American people and do their will on this issue. It will have NO impact on the federal budget. Earmarks are not “new” money. They only direct where the money will be spent. Essentially, they are directives from Congress on how taxpayers’ dollars should be spent, rather than allowing executive branch agencies to make all the decisions. The same amount of dollars will still be on the table and will be spent. The sad difference now is that Congress is abdicating its constitutional responsibility and privilege regarding the power of the purse, and turning over all the decisions to the executive branch. To me, this is very short-sighted. But it is an issue rife with demagoguery and political messaging. Politicians are falling all over themselves trying to outdo their rivals on this issue, so you will note that an unlikely coalition involving the President and congressional Republicans is having a field day with this issue. For many, perception has become reality, and it appears that the moratorium is real, at least for now.
The Senate action by Republicans comes on the heels of similar action by House Republicans earlier this year. It remains to be seen how congressional Democrats in both houses will respond and what they will do next. It is possible that all or some Democrats, and possibly even some Republicans, will continue to request earmarks. Politically I would envision Republicans making any Democratic earmarks a big issue during the next campaign. Hell hath no fury like a reformed earmarker! Only time will tell.
Bill LaForge is an attorney, Washington, D.C. office managing shareholder and Government Relations Practice Group leader with Winstead PC. A Cleveland, Mississippi native, Laforge was chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and culminated his government career as Chief Legislative Counsel and Chief of Staff to United States Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
Showing posts with label Earmarks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Earmarks. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tea Party Fuels Born-Again Earmark Opponents
Tuesday's Republican vote on imposing an earmark moratorium was a direct response to the rising influence of Tea Party conservatives in the Senate. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the de facto leader of the Tea Party Senate caucus, said "the significance of this policy victory cannot be overstated" in an e-mail to supporters.
But a close look at Tuesday's voice vote to impose a non-binding moratorium on earmarks not only showcases the Tea Party's clout in the Senate this year, but its significant influence in GOP primary politics in 2012 and beyond.
Several Republican senators who are up for re-election in 2012 and who have previously sought millions in earmarks reversed course on Tuesday to vote for the measure -- a move for some that was undoubtedly intended to shore up their right flank in 2012. And even newly elected moderate Republican senators, like Illinois' Mark Kirk and New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte, backed the measure, an indication that the politics of opposing earmarks is now viewed in the GOP as a clear political winner.
"Part of a politician's DNA is to talk out of both sides of their mouths," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization that opposes earmarks. "So it's not surprising that they have put their fingers into the political wind and sensed it has changed directions on earmarks."
Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker (R) is another surprising supporter of the moratorium. A veteran appropriator, Wicker requested $384 million worth of earmarks in 2010, in a state that's relied on federal funds for its military bases and shipyards, among other projects. But he's up for re-election in 2012, and his support of the moratorium is probably with a primary challenger in mind.
HL
But a close look at Tuesday's voice vote to impose a non-binding moratorium on earmarks not only showcases the Tea Party's clout in the Senate this year, but its significant influence in GOP primary politics in 2012 and beyond.
Several Republican senators who are up for re-election in 2012 and who have previously sought millions in earmarks reversed course on Tuesday to vote for the measure -- a move for some that was undoubtedly intended to shore up their right flank in 2012. And even newly elected moderate Republican senators, like Illinois' Mark Kirk and New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte, backed the measure, an indication that the politics of opposing earmarks is now viewed in the GOP as a clear political winner.
"Part of a politician's DNA is to talk out of both sides of their mouths," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization that opposes earmarks. "So it's not surprising that they have put their fingers into the political wind and sensed it has changed directions on earmarks."
Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker (R) is another surprising supporter of the moratorium. A veteran appropriator, Wicker requested $384 million worth of earmarks in 2010, in a state that's relied on federal funds for its military bases and shipyards, among other projects. But he's up for re-election in 2012, and his support of the moratorium is probably with a primary challenger in mind.
HL
Labels:
Earmarks,
Federal Government,
GOP,
Government Spending,
Politics,
TEA Party,
US Senate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
