Breaking: Senate rejects earmark ban in lame-duck session
posted at 12:15 pm on November 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
This doesn’t exactly come as a surprise, since the Republicans only have 42 seats in the lame-duck Senate and most of the anti-earmark caucus won’t take their seats until January. Still, the final vote on the proposed earmark ban was the closest reformers have come to victory, and it may be a harbinger of better days ahead:
The Senate Tuesday rejected a GOP bid to ban the practice of larding spending bills with earmarks — those pet projects that lawmakers love to send home to their states.
Most Democrats and a handful of Republicans combined to defeat the effort, which would have effectively forbidden the Senate from considering legislation containing earmarks like road and bridge projects, community development funding, grants to local police departments and special-interest tax breaks.
The 39-[56] tally, however, was a better showing for earmark opponents, who lost a 29-68 vote earlier this year. Any votes next year should be closer because a band of anti-earmark Republicans is joining the Senate.
Seven Democrats crossed over, including the outgoing Evan Bayh, both Colorado Senators Bennet and Udall, Russ Feingold, Mark Warner, Claire McCaskill, and Bill Nelson, the latter two of which will face voters in 2012. Interestingly, Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted against the earmark ban, as did Mark Pryor of Arkansas, both of whom will face huge challenges in getting re-elected in 2012. They don’t seem particularly concerned with voter sentiment after the midterm elections, but expect that to change soon.
Eight Republicans voted against the ban, mainly the usual suspects. Bob Bennett of Utah showed why voters were smart to go with Mike Lee in the primary. Jim Inhofe has publicly defended Congressional privilege, so his Nay was expected, as was that of Lisa Murkowski, Thad Cochran, George Voinovich, Susan Collins, and Richard Shelby. Dick Lugar voted against it too, just after complaining that he didn’t get enough respect from Tea Party conservatives; he can expect that to be a sore point in his re-election bid. Olympia Snowe was smarter — she will face a primary challenge and voted for the earmark ban to bolster her own center-right credentials.
The closer we get to 2011, the closer this vote will also get, and not just because the GOP has added six new Senate seats to their tally. The people running for re-election will discover that reformers mean what they say, and that those who want business as usual will have to start looking for a new business forthwith.
Update: The tally was 39-56, not 39-65, as was mistakenly reported by the AP and Fox. Here’s the Senate roll-call vote listing.
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
No surprises on the Earmark Eight. They’re expecting to be primaried anyway.
obladioblada on November 30, 2010 at 12:18 PM
If anyone thought this was going to be easy…think again. We aren’t just fighting liberals…we are fighting the establishment Republicans. We made some progress, and the party, regardless of these defectors, has to move forward on this. It makes sense, and the American public is behind us. The more we fight for this, the more support we ultimately gain.
neoavatara on November 30, 2010 at 12:18 PM
2012 we get the rest of them.
SurferDoc on November 30, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Some bacon to go with my eggs?
abobo on November 30, 2010 at 12:18 PM
So Lisa M. still has a vote?
Then why in the heck is Miller waging this silly vote war?
I’m confused.
AnninCA on November 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM
But earmarks are good and necessary and Constitutional.
Ron Paul said so.
catmman on November 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM
The AP did correct the vote tally to 39-56 & 5 not voting (2 R’s & 3 D’s). Someone pointed out in the headlines that most of the R’s were in Appropriations.
SnowSun on November 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM
OK, I just got it here. Lisa is still a vote in the Lame-Duck session.
I must then, say, DeMint and Miller are foolish as heck. Give it up, boyz.
AnninCA on November 30, 2010 at 12:21 PM
There will be hell to pay in 2012. Clearly this is against voter-intent of this month’s election, and they know it.
OmahaConservative on November 30, 2010 at 12:27 PM
One real positive about being home sick from work is getting to listen to Laura Ingraham & Rush in real time.
OmahaConservative on November 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM
I disagree that this ban is the way to go. I find Inhofe’s arguments very persuasive. Why institute a ban which immediately gives more power of the purse to the Obama White House? I detest pork, but there are other, more meaningful and constitutional ways to cut pork than banning earmarks.
Notably:
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM
And you said the same thing with Al Franken, right?
angryed on November 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Well, we can’t primary Luger because some liberal rag told us if we do that means democracy will have gone too far.
NotCoach on November 30, 2010 at 12:33 PM
WHich one of these Republican traitors are up for re-election in 2012? We have to back their primary challengers.
karenhasfreedom on November 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Rush thinks this earmark ban is b.s. smoke and mirrors (or at least he did a few weeks ago when I heard him about it).
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 12:35 PM
I’m on one of my once in a blue moon vacation days and get to do the same thing. Nice isn’t it?
TxAnn56 on November 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM
watch out mccain and grahamnesty, lisa will be dubbed the new maverick in town in pretty short order….
cmsinaz on November 30, 2010 at 12:39 PM
TODAY’S GOP: WE TALK THE TALK BUT NEVER WALK THE WALK
Dave Rywall on November 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM
One more nail in Ben Nelsons Re-election coffin…
serenity on November 30, 2010 at 12:41 PM
this can’t be right, can it?
Ann on November 30, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Is there a way that Congress can deny those that voted against this get no earmarks for their state?
actually, the list of Republicans that voted against the ban should not surprise you.
ramrants on November 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Lugar is trying for it, too, and the NYT seems to favor him…for the moment.
Wethal on November 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Rush blames the Louisiana purchase and Cornhusker Kickback on earmarks, calling them “bribes” (which they are) but they should be forbidden via other means. Why should residents of one state be exempt from rules forced on the rest of the country (such as where Floridians got to keep their Medicare Advantage, while the rest of us didn’t)? That should be a relatively easy thing to fix and is very different from allocating funds to, say, build a bridge or highway. Moreover, those who supported these bribes have serious re-election challenges.
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM
During a selimposed gop ban on pork in house scoundrel republicans like ron paul leading the house with pork this yr
jp on November 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM
you are correct…
cmsinaz on November 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Inhofe”s arguments were crap – and sophomoric rationalization for porking.
I can’t even remember who the guy is … but one of the Republicans in the house came out with an op-ed immediately after Inhofe’s and completely destroyed him.
Earmarks are bad.
And regardless – the issue is settled in the House – where the GOP is solidly anti-earmark.
And the issue is settled with the American people.
Now … the Senate “porkers” can keep shoving this down the throats of Americans – but I would refer them to the example of ObamaCare for exactly how well that works out in the end.
The voters ALWAYS get the last laugh.
Amazing that some Senate Republicans can’t learn from the mistakes of Obama and the Democrats – but seem intent on making the same mistakes themselve. Sure – shove that crap sandwich down the throats of Americans and see how that works out for you.
I won’t work out any better than it worked for Nancy Pelosi.
HondaV65 on November 30, 2010 at 12:46 PM
I sure hope Ed is right for once. ;-)
WashJeff on November 30, 2010 at 12:46 PM
You know, 57 states and all…
OmahaConservative on November 30, 2010 at 12:47 PM
More shellacking ahead.
Speakup on November 30, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Sorry but your arguments are moot. Americans don’t want earmarks and the polls clearly prove that.
Americans didn’t want ObamaCare either – and the polls proved that too – but the Democrats thought they were “smarter” than Americans and gave it to us “for our own good” anyway.
If some Senate Republicans want to go down that path – good luck to them.
They’ll be destroyed.
HondaV65 on November 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Please send Jon Bruning $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
OmahaConservative on November 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Rush 11/3:
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 12:52 PM
The most damaging result of pork isn’t just the amount of money wasted on earmarks. They are attached to much larger bills as vote inducements for the congresscritters. So, lots of bad legislation gets passed due to the corrupting influence. As long as the pretend money is available, it will be spent. The only real way to stop it is to not tax tha money away from the earners and into the federal coffers.
a capella on November 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Hah! Here we go!
humdinger on November 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM
They just don’t get it even after the butt whipping they got. It’s pretty amazing to watch a party just collapse because they are so out of touch with the people.
cpaulus on November 30, 2010 at 12:55 PM
IMHO they should bring this up every single day until January! Lets see how these elitist bastards hold up under continued scrutiny every week!
Also, if one of these tax and spend, send the US to the poorhouse, idiots, try and tack on wasteful spending to anything, call ‘em out and expose them for what they are! Wonder how many Dimwits would turn tail?
AllosaursRus on November 30, 2010 at 12:55 PM
More Rush:
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 12:55 PM
Indiana must be chock-full of real conservatives willing to take on Lugar.
OmahaConservative on November 30, 2010 at 12:56 PM
They don’t need to ban them — The Won will veto any bills that have them!
/passes the dutchie
DOOF on November 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Most Americans don’t know what an earmark is. The fact that Obama is opposed to them should get your antennae up.
Agreed.
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Ann – Even if Murkowski had been defeated, she would have had a vote, just like Bob Bennett and Russ Feingold who were defeated.
bw222 on November 30, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Ah, you beat me to it…
Kevin71 on November 30, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Missing the forest for the trees. Pork leads to larger government and bad legislation. It purchases Congressional votes.
a capella on November 30, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Why should the citizens of State X have their tax money used for the residents of State Y?
If these ‘projects’ are in fact needed, then put them into separate, stand alone legislation and vote on it. Let the pol from said state defend their request on its own, not part of some omnibus bill.
Congress keeps the ‘power of the purse’ (the argument that doing away with earmarks gives the WH all the power is BS on its face, Congress controls the money, not the WH) and nothing could be more transparent.
catmman on November 30, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Yeah, I said up in the headlines story earlier…
OmahaConservative on November 30, 2010 at 1:07 PM
I agree that earmark reform is needed. Banning it altogether is a thornier issue. But do you seriously think that if earmarks were banned State X would no longer pay for projects for residents of State Y?
Who is arguing that it will give the WH all the power? Meanwhile, how did we end up with Porkulus, which, as Rush noted, did not contain a single Congressional earmark?
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Without earmarks obamacaare doesnt pass
jp on November 30, 2010 at 1:15 PM
That was Tom Coburn, if memory serves.
Agreed…. Earmarks are a corrupting influence. They’re bribes.
That’s why they need to be banned. It’s not about how much of a slice they take out of the taxpayer pie. It’s not about who’s going to spend the money if we don’t. It’s about right and wrong. It’s WRONG to bribe voters. It’s WRONG to use our tax dollars to grease the wheels for legislative sausage-making. And it’s WRONG to forfeit one’s integrity… just because the other guy is doing it.
Republicans better stand up and lead the way. If they don’t, we’ll find some better ones who WILL.
Murf76 on November 30, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Wow. McCain is getting redder these days.
This bill and the Food Police bill. McCain got it right for the Right.
Hmmmmmm!
I like this New McCain!
[Just hoping for his redemption in the end! What's wrong with that!]
TheAlamos on November 30, 2010 at 1:28 PM
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM
catmman on November 30, 2010 at 1:02 PM
This is why the likes of LIZARDA MUKRIWOWORKSY is a present and clear danger to the Union!
TheAlamos on November 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM
That would be so awesome to primary Inhofe out! Even the ruling class establishment would have hard time misinterpreting that message!
All of the porkers are for the block.
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM
If said ‘projects’ are in stand alone legislation and the sponsoring pol can defend it to his cohorts in Congress and they vote to support it, then why not? This is how it should be done, is it not?
Earmarks, as they are used now, are payoffs. I doesn’t matter what justification people like Inhofe use for them. Earmarks MAY be used correctly, but they rarely are, hence the problem.
As to the whole “the money is already appropriated and is going to be spent anyway” argument, that’s also BS. The appropriations process also needs to be fixed. Much of the money being appropriated is being wasted. Earmarks are an excuse for a lot of that waste.
Yeah, its a small amount of money. So what? It’s not Congress’s money, it belongs to the taxpayer. If it isn’t being ‘spent’ on earmarks or being appropriated in a wasteful process, then use it to begin paying down debt or give it back to the damn taxpayer.
catmman on November 30, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Inhofe says earmarks are the only way to stop Obama from wasting all the money with his crony payouts.
PrezHussein on November 30, 2010 at 1:47 PM
Earmark ban is the same thing as Obama saying he will freeze federal pay. It is an empty gesture until other things are stopped.
PrezHussein on November 30, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Inhofe has done yoeman’s work fighting the global warming/climate change frauds and their legislative agenda(s). Hate that too? How does a little Cap n Trade sound to you?
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Just as telling are the Democrats who voted for the ban. Bayh, the Democrat in Indiana voted for the ban and Lugar the Republican voted against it. Thinks are a little topsy turvy in Indiana right now. That needs to be fixed.
sheesh on November 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Yup! Give up! Roll over. Lie down! Curl up in a ball, and let the Dems continue to just roll over all of us, with a mack truck.
Better? For you? Thought so!
capejasmine on November 30, 2010 at 2:25 PM
He’s neck deep in pork corruption. Dump Inhofe!
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 2:33 PM
You agree with infohole?
Geesh.
If the Treasury has savings after basic services (salaries), then use it to pay for debts.
Not to unproductive and pandering earmarks.
If they argue that it’s for infra, then ask: what happened to stimulus of 2009 which were mainly for infra?
INFOHOLE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SENATOR WHO DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO BUDGET!
TheAlamos on November 30, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Where do you get your facts, er, talking points? Itemize please in detail. Thanks. Meanwhile here’s a previous post by Ed Morrissey on the oh so “corrupt” Inhofe. Here’s a snippet:
Citing out-of-control deficit spending by the federal government, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) today introduced the Honest Expenditure Limitation Program (HELP) Act of 2010 to rein in government spending. The act, co-sponsored by Sens. Burr (R-N.C.) and Barrasso (R-Wy.), would result in nearly $900 billion in savings over a 10 year period.
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 2:59 PM
You want me to itemize? That’s absurd: Inhofe just voted to continue gorging at the trough, what more evidence do you need?
Inhofe is swimming in swill and it’s time to flush him.
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 3:04 PM
You should check out the topic of this thread, Buy Danish. Inhofe is guilty as charged.
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 3:08 PM
Oh please, that’s not what this is about at all. Still waiting for specific evidence to back up your allegations of “corruption” et cetera.
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Pork is corruption.
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 3:17 PM
But of course, if you’re a big government progressive then pork is a necessity, so I can understand why you appose an earmark ban.
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Send him to the gallows!
Sen. Jim Inhofe was rated by National Journal as the most conservative senator in 2009…
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Inhofe is a champion of the corrupt establishment.
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 3:22 PM
(That should have been in response to your 3:21.)
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Blah blah blah. I support Inhofe’s solutions to cut pork, not the phony solution Obama approves of.
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 3:25 PM
It’s funny how a Romneycare supporter (including the mandate) is jumping to the defense of “the most conservative senator”. LOL!
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 3:25 PM
It doesn’t matter if it gives someone an edge, or gives an advantage to Obama…that’s how we get into these messes, by doing thing not because they are right, but because some don’t want to relinquish power.
It is wrong, earmarks are wrong, so they should be removed. I don’t care if it helps Obama, and hurts lobbyists, or hurts a senator because they can’t bring home the bacon.
Earmarks don’t belong in our system, don’t belong attached to bills, all they do is create a nest for lobbyists to lay their eggs in, and the congressional foxes gobble them up.
right2bright on November 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Someone else is missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn’t earmarks, the problem is corrupt politicians.
Sure it does. The only reason they traded their vote for goodies is because they could. Earmarks or not, Obamacare was passing, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
xblade on November 30, 2010 at 3:33 PM
“LOL LOL LOL!!!“/
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Are you serious? Of course it matters.
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Someone has to say it. I am for for a certain type of earmark and against another form. Earmarks that are properly vetted through the apprpriation committees are perfectly fine with me. As a matter of fact I want the entire budget to be earmarked and not left up to the executive branch to spend however the hell they want to spend the allocatd monies. Earmarks that bypass the appropriations committees and slide into bills under the darkness of nightfall should be banned.
Without the ability to earmark the 2011 and 2012 budgets, how the hell do you people think the republicans will be able to starve BOCare of funding? With earmarks they can specifically eliminate dozens of departments and functions that were created by BOCare.
David in ATL on November 30, 2010 at 4:18 PM
The defenders of pork and the corruption that drives it ask us, “what is pork?”. They’d have us believe that the answer is subjective and depends upon what the definition of “is” is.
They remind me of Clinton.
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 4:30 PM
There are probably millions of citizens with very little political power that nonetheless benefit from all of this pork swill that people like Inhofe like to swim around in.
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 4:32 PM
…Those people are going to resist being pulled away from the trough.
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Inhofe is a conservative version of Clinton.
FloatingRock on November 30, 2010 at 4:38 PM
I doubt it. The only person I can think of that could actually be a threat to Lugar is Pence. But then again, his election is a couple of years away and who knows what might happen between now and then.
Terrye on November 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM
No one is defending pork, Floating Rock. I do know someone who is erecting straw men though, and tarring people with a broad brush.
But, but, but you’re a Clintonian pig who feeds at the trough!
Buy Danish on November 30, 2010 at 5:50 PM
Mark, son of David, Pryor is not up for re-election until 2014…His earmark vote will be the least of his worries
Gohawgs on November 30, 2010 at 9:37 PM
Earmarks and transitions from legislative office to lobbyist must be stopped. They give to strong an appearance of utter corruption in our government. This vote simply reinforces this.
{^_^}
herself on December 1, 2010 at 1:43 AM
I’m reading an sf novel by Alastair Reynolds in which one of the characters is a hyperpig. I’ve had trouble visualizing what that would look like, but now I’m getting a pretty good idea.
flataffect on December 1, 2010 at 4:10 AM
Of my two senators (Dumb & Dumber), Warner (Dumber) voted for the ban and he’s not up until 2014. Go figure. While, Webb (Dumb) voted against the ban and he’s up in 2012.
Don’t know what’s on Webb’s mind but he’s digging himself a deeper hole for 2012. On the other hand, I thought there was a rumor going around that Webb won’t run in 2012 since he’s not out there now actively chasing down campaign contribtions (unlike idiot Kerry in MA who is up in 2014). If Webb were smart he’d switch parties.
Bob in VA on December 1, 2010 at 9:44 AM