House GOP caucus still likes their pork
posted at 8:40 am on November 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Two successive national-election losses still hasn’t clued Republicans into the need for dramatic change in their direction. The House GOP caucus rejected a plan by John Boehner and Eric Cantor to impose a unilateral moratorium on pork-barrel spending, even a short term freeze:
Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Eric Cantor of Virginia had unveiled late Wednesday a moratorium on GOP earmark requests through Feb. 16 while a new panel of Republicans comes up with proposals for permanent restrictions and disclosure requirements for earmarks
But Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, an appropriator, offered an amendment to strip the requirement for an earmark moratorium. And Tiahrt’s moratorium-killing proposal was approved by the full caucus, said several GOP aides. The amended rules package was then adopted.
Tiahrt has been a staunch defender of earmarks, and has been a rival of outgoing Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, one of the strongest proponents of a permanent earmark moratorium for all Republicans. Tiahrt lost a bitter head-to-head race against Hensarling for the chairmanship of the RSC at the start of the 110th Congress, and later opted to leave the conservative faction.
Boehner and Cantor just won election to leadership posts (re-elected, in Boehner’s case) in what was supposed to show a decision by House Republicans to firm up their message. This shows that flabbiness remains in style among Republicans on Capitol Hill. Last year, conservative activists tried to get the caucus to adopt a year-long unilateral moratorium in order to regain the mantle of fiscal responsibility. This time, they just wanted a commitment that would last three months, and still didn’t get it.
What does this say about the newly-elected leadership? Cantor was a particularly popular choice among conservatives as someone who could get the GOP back to its limited-government roots. It appears as though the House GOP elected Cantor as a figurehead, having no intention on following through on the promise for reform and focus on providing a rational difference for voters.
So what’s the strategy now? Pray that Democrats overreach so badly that people will vote Republican in 2010 out of spite? That’s not a strategy, that’s a hubris all on its own.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Ed:
“It’s hypocrisy. That’s why it’s a much bigger problem for supposedly small-government Republicans.”
Well, it doesn’t seem to be a problem for the guys who voted against the moratorium, since they obviously got re-elected. There’s a lesson in that too, which you seem to be ignoring.
“Supposedly” is probably the key word here. I’m on the smaller government side of the fence, but unless you can produce some stats confirming that Republicans were voted out of office during the last two elections because they expanded federal government, I’m not sure how you support the unlearned lessons argument,
JM Hanes on November 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Yeah, like when McCain supported the bank bailout. Oh, wait…
TMK on November 21, 2008 at 8:54 PM
“Though this can be true, a cadidate can also win an election touting fiscal responsibility. If an Incumbent turns away pork or at least limits it to a minimum, he can run as one of the more fiscually responsible congressman in the house.”
Sounds great in theory but do you have any evidence that a Congressman has ever actively voted against millions of dollars of federal spending that was to go to their district and got re-elected?
crosspatch on November 22, 2008 at 7:46 AM
Ed, please grow a new pair. I happen to agree with Obama on this: if pork is the base’s biggest quandary, then we have a major problem with priorities. Granted, this is a setback, but if pork is really a ’symbolic’ issue as opposed to a pressing one, what has more impact: abolishing pork to start the next two years of leadership, or abolishing pork as the cherry-on-top after two years of strong leadership?
gwallensky on November 22, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2