Lucille
11-10-2010, 11:35 AM
HotAir Exclusive interview: Sen. James Inhofe pushes back on earmark moratorium (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/10/exclusive-interview-sen-james-inhofe-pushes-back-on-earmark-moratorium/)
In a wide-ranging interview this morning exclusive to Hot Air with one of the leading conservative voices in Congress, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma explained why he has decided to oppose the earmark moratorium pushed this week by fellow Republicans like Sens. Jim DeMint (SC) and John McCain (AZ). The moratorium not only contradicts the Constitution, Inhofe argues, but it puts the power of the purse mainly into the hands of the President — and Barack Obama has already shown that he can’t be trusted with it after his pork-filled stimulus plan from February 2009. Inhofe warns that “Obama wins” if the moratorium passes, which is why the President has publicly backed the effort.
Finally, someone else gets it!
I posted this link and quoted the following excerpt in the thread:
Neil Cavuto Busted Peddling Liberal-Smack On Rand Paul (http://capitalistbanner.com/2010/11/09/neil-cavuto-busted-peddling-liberal-smack-on-rand-paul/)
So there is a question of semantics when dealing with earmarks, as every state is entitled to some decree of funds from the federal government – we do all pay taxes remember? Most government spending could be defined as “earmarked” spending, but only “pork-barrel earmarks” have been the target of reformers, like Neil Cavuto and Rand Paul!
It will be be nice when Boobus Americanus finally gets it, especially when the anti-Paul contingent, who have a "fundamental misunderstanding" of earmarks, can no longer use this issue to bludgeon him with.
Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-11/ron-paul-on-earmarks/): Thank you, Madame Speaker. I would like to address the subject of earmarks today. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here among the members about exactly what it means to vote against an earmark. It’s very popular today to condemn earmarks and even hold up legislation because of this.
The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch.
So, in many ways what we are doing here in the Congress is reneging on our responsibilities. Because it is the responsibility of the Congress to earmark. That’s our job. We’re supposed to tell the people how we’re spending the money. Not to just deliver it in the lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it. And then it’s dealt with behind the scenes. Actually, if you voted against all the earmarks there would be less transparency. Earmarks really allow transparency and we know exactly where the money is being spent...
In a wide-ranging interview this morning exclusive to Hot Air with one of the leading conservative voices in Congress, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma explained why he has decided to oppose the earmark moratorium pushed this week by fellow Republicans like Sens. Jim DeMint (SC) and John McCain (AZ). The moratorium not only contradicts the Constitution, Inhofe argues, but it puts the power of the purse mainly into the hands of the President — and Barack Obama has already shown that he can’t be trusted with it after his pork-filled stimulus plan from February 2009. Inhofe warns that “Obama wins” if the moratorium passes, which is why the President has publicly backed the effort.
Finally, someone else gets it!
I posted this link and quoted the following excerpt in the thread:
Neil Cavuto Busted Peddling Liberal-Smack On Rand Paul (http://capitalistbanner.com/2010/11/09/neil-cavuto-busted-peddling-liberal-smack-on-rand-paul/)
So there is a question of semantics when dealing with earmarks, as every state is entitled to some decree of funds from the federal government – we do all pay taxes remember? Most government spending could be defined as “earmarked” spending, but only “pork-barrel earmarks” have been the target of reformers, like Neil Cavuto and Rand Paul!
It will be be nice when Boobus Americanus finally gets it, especially when the anti-Paul contingent, who have a "fundamental misunderstanding" of earmarks, can no longer use this issue to bludgeon him with.
Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-11/ron-paul-on-earmarks/): Thank you, Madame Speaker. I would like to address the subject of earmarks today. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here among the members about exactly what it means to vote against an earmark. It’s very popular today to condemn earmarks and even hold up legislation because of this.
The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch.
So, in many ways what we are doing here in the Congress is reneging on our responsibilities. Because it is the responsibility of the Congress to earmark. That’s our job. We’re supposed to tell the people how we’re spending the money. Not to just deliver it in the lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it. And then it’s dealt with behind the scenes. Actually, if you voted against all the earmarks there would be less transparency. Earmarks really allow transparency and we know exactly where the money is being spent...