Today, we learned that the Tea Party doesn’t need to elect its candidates to advance its agenda. When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in the words of Politico’s Manu Raju, “stunned official Washington on Monday by saying he would support a two-year ban on the pet projects“, it was the statement heard round the blogosphere, resounding across the Beltway. This shrewd politician could read the tea leaves.
This former champion of earmarks was deft in explaining his change of heart (some have called it a flip-flop or “about-face“). He claims to “know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state” and refuses to apologize for them:
But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government.
That’s why 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.
“Behind this principled sounding explanation,” Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff writes
. . . lie solid pragmatic considerations. For one thing, McConnell presumably does not wish to face, or see members of caucus face, strong Tea Party opposition in primaries over the next few cycles.
More fundamentally, McConnell presumably does not want a schism develop between the leadership and the Tea Party faction of his caucus over an issue that is mostly symbolic. Indeed, if McConnell can navigate his way through this issue, there may be no schism.
Read the whole thing. What is significant is that McConnell recognizes that what political benefit might once have come from earmarks has long since evaporated with the growing public concern about spendthrift politicians in our nation’s capital. A small government consensus continues to emerge.
The Tea Party has helped make it good politics to oppose the pork-barrel politicians which incumbents once thought essential to survival.
If they can’t get the small stuff right there’s no hope for the big.
Bill, well said. And with the McConnell switch, it looks like they’re getting the small stuff.
Now if only they would reform (as in cut) entitlements. And government worker compensation. And so-called “stimulus” spending.
Looks like McConnell caught a ride on the Epiphany Express. Good on him.
If projects can’t stand on their own merits, they should not be hidden in other bills. We want transparency! And we want Congress not to be able to hide behind “….well, I didn’t realize that was in my bill”. Another version of “…you’ll have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”. While they’re at, they should put a limit on number of pages permitted in any one bill. And include sunset limits to force laws to expire at a specific date in the future. If the law is important enough, pass it again. Rant done…that’s what happens when I can’t sleep!
Dan, it used to be that symbols and slogans were often left behind on the campaign trail after the election occurred and the winner was safely seated in office.
I think with the advent of the 24×7 campaigner style of govt, we’re now “enjoying” a higher level of frequency on the use of symbols in lieu of meaningful, significant policy. Earmarks were wrong not because they raised the budget (they didn’t per se), they were wrong because –as McConnell notes– they became a symbol of the log-rolling antics that corrupts DC. As a symbol of what is wrong with the legislative process, they needed to go. Does anyone think that the crafty political souls in office won’t find a different mechanism or tool to keep bringing home the bacon? Cause if they think ending earmarks takes care of the problem, I’d advise them to keep clicking those ruby red slippers until they’re really back in Kansas.
McConnell tried to explain rationally, like a good Washington insider lost in the woods, that earmarks were about discretion, not out-of-control pork barrel politics or legislative log-rolling. Someone in the comments section on another thread even mimicked McConnell in saying that they simply replaced legislative discretion for bureaucratic discretion… so they weren’t all that bad.
But as a symbol of what’s wrong with our legislative process and the corruption of power in DC, you can’t find a better symbol… unless it was Queen NancyP’s demand for private jet service at taxpayer expense… which incoming GOP Speaker Boehner has quickly dispatched, thank God.
I just hope we don’t think the symbolic gestures are adequate to fix the real problems in DC. Taking stands against symbols in the campaign phase of politics is good and sometimes too easy… it’s making sure there’s significant policy change to follow the symbolic gestures is far, far more important.
I am intrigued by the chatter surrounding ear marks and the fact that they are small potatoes in the deficit goulash. And, dollar wise, they are like shaving a tenth of a point off a 14% interest rate.
A new principal of a school in chaos came aboard and immediately ordered that the students not wear hats in the building. Most people reacted with disbelief. Of all the problems, why hats? I worked wonders. When people saw how serious the guy was about hats, they, in turn, took all of his other decisions very seriously.
Banning ear marks sets the tone. It is the job of the new watchers to watch the antics in Congress and call out those who do not understand the message.
Helio, I’m not sure earmarks are small potatoes.
Earmarks can be tax breaks, grants or directed expenditures but they are almost always paid for by funds already included in the budgeting process… they can come from the individual members, from Caucus leaders for members, from the WH and even from fed agencies encouraging favored constituent groups to purchase services from specially-connected, politically advantaged companies or vendors. The way an earmark is distributed can be as creative and varied as any political bribe, graft or pork ladling.
The central element is that someone is earmarking an expenditure –earmark on budget allocations not yet spent. Sometimes they’re subject to the openness of the application process now in place for approps committees, sometimes not. Sometimes they are so hidden away, it’s hard for even the legislative staffers who drafted the language to recall who and what the $$ was for… it’s like a Middle East bizarre sometimes.
One thing I do know, tho, is that the total figure is a lot higher than most legislative staffers will admit… and it isn’t all “building a rainforest in the middle of Iowa” or “teaching monkeys to snort coke”… that said, much of ACORN’s funding from govt agencies (HUD, Treas, IRS, EPA, DoEnergy) came from earmarks. Go figure, eh?
Mich-Matt: As a Neanderthal, I am opposed to all ear marks and all government waste and profligacy. In fact, I would favor having all spending bills limited to a single, specific, detailed project. If Congressmen want to shop their pork in exchange for votes on the pork of others, the Senate can alter or ignore it and ultimately the President would have virtual line item veto power.
Christmas tree bills have a long and nasty history. The Republican Congress could get the House rules streamlined and more open. As a Parliament of Whores, they are naturally loathe to make their work more difficult, open and subject to outside examination.