I made the following statement today regarding the Senate Republican Conference voluntary moratorium banning earmarks.
I oppose the Senate Republican Conference voluntary moratorium on so-called "earmarks." At a moment in which over-spending by the Federal government perpetuates annual deficits of over $1 trillion a year, the Congress is being asked to debate a Congressional earmark spending resolution which will save no money even while giving the impression that the Congress is attempting to meet the public demand to reduce spending.
Instead of surrendering Constitutional authority to Washington bureaucrats and the Obama Administration, Congress should focus on reducing spending on both entitlement and discretionary spending programs. Providing the Obama Administration with greater authority to direct spending does not accomplish this goal, and eliminating earmarks does not reduce spending.
The Constitution explicitly states that it is the responsibility of Congress to make decisions on the appropriation of federal taxpayer funds. Earmarks should be considered and treated like amendments to any underlying spending bill. Members should have the opportunity to offer earmarks, review them, and offer motions to strike or modify them. And each of these steps -- from the committee process, to the floor, to the conference committee -- should take place in an absolute transparent and deliberate manner and be publicly disclosed at each step along the way with a final public up or down vote.
In 2008, I was asked by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to serve as a chairman of a fiscal reform working group to find consensus on the issue of earmarks within the Republican Conference. Our working group unanimously supported efforts to reduce spending, but held strong and diverse views on the subject of earmarks. However, we were able to come to an agreement and issued a report (PDF).
While this report was never enacted into law, the Senate Appropriations Committee has adopted many of the transparency suggestions. Since that time, I have abided by the framework of the report and have disclosed projects that I have requested on behalf of Indiana communities on my website.
Our working group advocated that, "an open and accountable amendment process and absolute transparency on every Member request successfully inserted into legislation is essential to the integrity of federal spending. In addition, Members should also have assurance that when they vote for a specific bill or conference report that all earmarks are written in a clear and transparent manner."
Further, our working group noted that, "the practice of earmarking is not limited to Members of Congress but is also apparent in the President's budget proposal. Likewise, these requests should be clear, transparent, and subject to amendment or deletion."
Congress should exercise, rather than abdicate, its Constitutional authority to cut spending and reduce the deficit.
Follow Sen. Dick Lugar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/senatorlugar
Also cut politician's staff - some of them employ 60 or more - multiply that by 435 in congress, 100 in the Senate and who knows how many in the White House and elsewhere, all with generous benefits. Plus all the secondary people.
This will not fix the deficit but it will send a message and save millions, if not billions and every bit helps...
I read where one of the earlier presidents (Can't remember which one) had to ask to be allowed to employ an assistant - prior to that Presidents did pretty much everything themselves - Now even the First Lady has a formidable staff - that we all pay for.
Headline on "DailyFinance":
"Members of Congress Getting Richer, Despite Market Meltdown"
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/members-of-congress-getting-richer-despite-market-meltdown/19722898/
Earmarks have but one purpose: to get something through as "law" that would not otherwise pass.
There are two possibilities for someone to want an earmark:
1. He sells his voice even though the bill is good for the people but he wants something that is bad for them so he says his voice can only be had if the people suffered for it.
2. He sells his voice to a bill that hurts the people. In that case he is TWICE betraying his voters. Because he gets something in there that is bad for the people and he will give his voice to the bill that hurts people if his idea to hurt them goes along with it.
And no. - THERE ARE NO EARMARKS THAT DO NOT HURT THE PEOPLE.
It is simple logic. If a politician wants something passed that is good for the people - for a change - he will make a law out of it and let the people celebrate him openly. When he hides something as an earmark it is without fail damaging the people hw should work FOR. - You know how the law calls someone who swers to serve the people only to take money to do the opposite? - You may want to look that one up.
.OK TEABAGGERS.NOW."CLICK YOUR HEELS"......
That ought to do it!
Legislature, like anywhere power is concentrated, is a club. Combined with a siege mentality and cognitive innoculation, such a group can easily mistake others' needs for what is important to them. We talk about cutting public expenditure but bailouts to the problematic financial sector remain. You talk about cutting down on overheads yet defense spending is in the runaway stage, connected contractors scheme to make money from Uncle Sam with the collusion of willing legislators, and so on.
Meanwhile what affects the masses at community level, education, taxation, social welfare programs of whatever kind, housing and suchlike all take a back seat to games like "earmarks". There'll never be true fiscal reforms when the factors listed above, and many more, exist.
Congress, as always with politicians, is missing the forest for the trees.
By all mean, tho, stay solid in your opposition, tell your representatives to stay away from those earmarks.
I would love for the money to go to sensible projects picked by people who understand what this nation needs and how it runs.