Tweet
Looking to regain the high ground on ethics reform, House Democrats banned budget earmarks for private companies and dared their Republican counterparts to do the same.
Earmarks make up less than 1% of the total budget; they would have accounted for $1.7 billion in a $3 trillion dollar budget last year. Nonetheless, they have become synonymous with corruption and influence-peddling. So House Republicans may get baited into approving a total ban on earmarks for their entire caucus. They’ll hold a caucus-wide vote on the question today.
As we know, Republican rule is characterized by profit-taking; they’re really not interested in anything else. A caucus-wide earmark ban will get broken within the first five minutes of its enactment.
Of course, there’s a danger for Democrats here as well, especially as the Senate is not inclined to follow the lead of the House:
If the Senate does not follow the House’s lead, that would set up a confrontation between the two chambers, with the Senate including for-profit earmarks in its budget bills and the House excluding them. Negotiators from each body would then have to determine which earmarks, if any, would make it into a final bill sent to the White House for approval.
Senator Daniel K. Inouye, the Democrat of Hawaii who leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Wednesday that current restrictions were already working and that “it does not make sense to discriminate against for-profit organizations” by banning earmarks to them. He noted that many nonprofits had powerful lobbying operations to secure earmarks as well.
Transparency in the process, with full votes, probably works better than a ban with a work-around. And earmarks are, er, not really a problem in the large scheme of things. Corporate tax loopholes have robbed the American taxpayer far more than a spending request to fix a school.
16 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Exactly. That’s why Jack Murtha’s alleged corruption never bothered me because it was what used to be called “honest graft” as opposed to “dishonest graft”. Murtha’s deals were cut to help bring jobs to his district and to help veterans, as opposed to building mansions for himself in the manner of Duke Cunningham.
Grumpy McCain on twitter: I applaud @GOPLeader for calling for a full moratorium on all earmarks in the House
Poor Republicans. It sux to have their BS bluff called.
Stop the Presses!! Had to do a doubletake–thought there was a mistake. Heh.
No shit? That could happen? I’m shocked! The two houses have been fighting for the last two years. I don’t agree with Pelosi on many of her policy standpoints (although I agree with her on reducing the military and ending foreign wars), but she has been the lead of the house which has done a far better job of sticking to the mandate they were given in the last election. The senate debates all seem to be transparent…. about some scumbag getting a kickback for his buddies (be it Lieberman, Nelson, whomever).
As for the earmarks issue, I don’t think it’s actually a good idea. Earmarks are just setting specific deliverables for funding bills. If one is bad, the chambers have the right to strip them out by amendment. And the “for profit” part is not all bad. Government should be trying to let for profit private industry operate anywhere there is a functional market (like construction). Competitive bids ensure that the taxpayers get fair prices for the work that is done.
If Corporations are being “excused” from taxes through tax loopholes, if the wealthy still have their Bush tax cuts, and a great number of us are paying minimal/no taxes because of unemployment …. where’s our government getting money? Is this logical? Do you kill all the chickens and then complain because you can’t get a chicken egg?
More spineless lip service from the Ds. Trying to grab headlines over a matter of no substance.
Actually, it’s to counter GOP/Media spin like this headline: “House GOP Leaders Press for Freeze on Earmarks“. Furthermore, if the ban does go through, it’s a win anyway.
Crumbs. Guess that’s all there is these days.
More shiny objects while important stuff gets shoved down the drain. Is there nothing of substance for Congress to do. And if there is not why the hell are we paying the bastards to be there. Of course while they are futzing around with earmarks Rahmboy is making multi billion dollar deals with InsurPharma.
“Earmarks make up less than 1% of the total budget; they would have accounted for $1.7 billion in a $3 trillion dollar budget last year. … and earmarks are, er, not really a problem in the large scheme of things.”
Still a lot of money. 100 million dollars times 17 is A LOT of money and the way it is spent should be taken very seriously. It ALL matters. You would think progressives would care a little more about money being spent to prop up a corrupt system of rewards for campaign donors. It goes to the heart of what’s wrong with government.
“Ethics reform”. What a misnomer! Everyone knows they have no fucking ethics. Another mountain sprung from a molehill.
When they want to start talking about cutting defense and homeland security budgets, raising taxes on the wealthy, and confiscating unreported assets in overseas accouts, maybe I’ll pay attention.
I’ll believe in this when Defense spending is included.
Empty grandstanding by House Democrats. They have no desire to ban earmarks to for-profit entities at all, and they know that any such attempted ban would fail completely anyway. This is election-year bullshit.
The GOP just called for no earmarks for non-profits – not a group that they often help.
So for profit/give a Duke Cunningham type kickback earmarks are banned by Democrats, as well as money to the Red Cross for disaster work being banned by the GOP.
Seems to follow current political realities.
That said, I agree the giving of money should go through the committee process, and not go out the door via “earmarks”.
This is easy to circumvent.
At my local level, most local municipalities, for example, have non-profit entities that receive the taxpayer money, then they funnel it out to other for-profit entitles and vendors, in the form of cash, contracts, and tax-relief for periods of time, like 10 years (CRA), further over-burdening the city so it needs more cash.
Over and done.