earmarks

It looks like the anti-spending brigade will get some support on the powerful House Appropriations Committee — incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner has said he backs fifth-term Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake’s bid to be named to Appropriations.

Flake, a major spark in the anti-earmark efforts and a strong proponent of free trade, was a thorn in the side of the free-spending Republicans and had been relegated to some less influential committees.  In fact, Flake was “purged” from his position on the House Judiciary Committee (as reported in 2007 by Robert Novak) for his “bad behavior” — his outspokenness and actions against earmarks and Republican leaders. 

His principled positions were duly noted by free market policy groups. He was rated the most fiscally conservative House member by the National Taxpayers Union, a Taxpayer “Super Hero” by Citizens Against Government Waste, and the top free trader by Cato Institute. Undeterred by his slapdown, in 2008 Flake asked for an Appropriations seat but was turned down.  Here’s what he said in his 2008 letter:

One of the major factors in our loss of the Congressional majority in 2006 and subsequent losses this month is that House Republicans have made ourselves indistinguishable from Democrats on federal spending.  Voters simply no longer associate us with limited government.

Earmarks make up a small fraction of the federal budget, but they receive an inordinate amount of public attention.  It is difficult for Republicans to convince voters that we have turned a corner on spending if we continue to use the House Appropriations Committee as little more than a vehicle for securing earmarks.

But how things have changed.  With a cadre of newly elected anti-spending representatives in Congress, Flake, with his own 66.3 percent of the vote in his district, finally got the nod from the Republican leadership. Here’s what Boehner said in his statement endorsing Flake for Appropriations:

“I support Congressman Jeff Flake [R-AZ] in his effort to be appointed to serve on the Appropriations Committee, and I join with incoming Majority Leader Cantor in expressing hope that other reform-minded Members of Congress will follow Jeff’s example in seeking appointment to the committee.”

Flake’s not letting any grass grow under his feet.  He’s already asking for a new Investigations Subcommittee to be established under the aegis of Appropriations.  Its task?  Here’s what appears on Flake’s website:

Taxpayers deserve an Appropriations subcommittee dedicated to investigations. Such a subcommittee will:

–Send a clear message to taxpayers that the Committee is serious about spending oversight;

–Shoulder the burden of the Committee?s oversight duties, freeing individual subcommittees to focus on crafting responsible spending bills;

–Implement a thorough and responsive oversight agenda focused on cutting waste, reducing duplication, and increasing transparency. Selected potential topics in what would be a long and full spending oversight agenda are below.

Here’s hoping he’ll get that subcommittee — and some more anti-spending colleagues on Appropriations. That may not be easy, since Kentuckian Harold Rogers was named to be chairman of the Appropriations Committee.  He had in the past been called the  “Prince of Pork” — but vows that as chairman he’ll rein in government spending and hold to the Republican moratorium on earmarks.

Image credit: Right Winger’s flickr photostream.

Sen. Richard Shelby, who placed holds on over 70 of President Obama’s nominees, has lifted all but three of them. Politico reports:

A spokesman for the senator said Monday that with attention brought to these two concerns, the political maneuver had “accomplished” its goal and was no longer necessary.

Translation: “We were getting too much bad publicity.”

The three holds that Sen. Shelby is keeping in place have directly to do with the Alabama-based pork projects that he believes will make him look good to the Alabama voters he will be facing in November. So, in a way, nothing has changed.

This brings up a legitimate question: can earmarking abuse sometimes be an agent for smaller government?

Few, if any, of President Obama’s appointees will work to decrease the size and scope of government. Now that their path is cleared, they will probably do net harm to taxpayers. This is the nature of government workers, whether Republican or Democratic.

Sen. Shelby’s motive for blocking them is despicable: stealing from taxpayers to improve his re-election prospects. But one wonders if those same taxpayers would have been better off if Sen. Shelby had stuck to his guns.

One reason Democrats were so upset about losing their 60th Senate seat was that it would make it easier for Republicans to obstruct legislation.

Fair enough. But the revived possibility of a filibuster may turn out to be the least of their worries.

Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, has placed a hold on more than 70 of President Obama’s nominees.

His motivations are not partisan. He wants money. A lot of it. If Democrats simply throw a few billion federal dollars at his home state, he promises to release his holds.

Basically, Sen. Shelby is requesting a wealth transfer from federal taxpayers – that’s you and me – to politically favored groups in Alabama. Presumably the earmarks would make him look good to Alabama voters. Sen. Shelby is up for re-election this November. Who doesn’t like free goodies? Vote for Shelby!

But they aren’t free. The money to pay for them has to come from somewhere – us. Let us mince no words, then. Sen. Shelby is a thief. What a shame that such stealing is perfectly legal.

Your hosts Richard Morrison and Jeremy Lott team up with special guest co-host Tim Carney to bring you Episode 73 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We start with the climate crisis in Copenhagen, the legislative tightrope on health care legislation in the Senate and the passing and legacy of economist Paul Samuelson. We continue with the latest pork-filled spending bill and conclude with an interview with Tim Carney, author of the new book Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses (available online and at fine booksellers everywhere).

Obama gets a failing grade from economists. “U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.”

Not content with the $8 trillion the Obama Administration has already committed for bailouts, pork, and welfare, Treasury Secretary Geithner, who was confirmed by the Senate despite cheating on his taxes, wants to spend $100 billion on IMF loans to bail out struggling nations in Eastern Europe and elsewhere — even though many European “officials doubt the wisdom of falling deeply into debt to create jobs and halt the plunge in consumer demand, as the United States is doing.”

Wal-Mart’s stock rating has been downgraded due to the possible passage of card-check legislation supported by Obama, which could lead to “diminished workforce flexibility” and pay based on “seniority” rather than merit, as a result of compulsory arbitration provisions contained in the bill. (The bill could also lead to intimidation of workers). The stock market has also fallen this year as investors have become disenchanted with the Administration.

The Federal Government may face increasing calls to bail out state governments, which have run up trillions of dollars in unfunded, and incredibly generous, pension liabilities to state employees in contracts negotiated with their unions using deliberately-deceptive accounting.

Obama broke his campaign promise to curb earmarks by signing a bloated, $410 billion appropriations bill that contained 8,500 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion. It also broke his campaign promise of a “net spending cut.”

Obama broke seven campaign promises dealing with transparency and clean government in signing the economy-shrinking, $800 billion stimulus package, much of whose contents were secret until shortly before Congress voted on it, and whose 1400 pages went unread by most Congressmen who voted on it.

Earlier, Obama repeatedly broke his promises not to sign bills without first giving the public five days to comment. “Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them,” Obama’s campaign Web site stated. “As president, Obama will not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.”

But Obama has repeatedly signed laws without providing such notice, such as the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, his very first law, which he signed less than 2 days after it was passed by the House, with no opportunity for comment. Moreover, in signing the Ledbetter law, Obama made false claims about both the facts of the Supreme Court case that the Ledbetter law overturned, and what the Supreme Court actually held in that case.

The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius, finally losing patience with Obama, criticizes the Administration’s focus on anything but fixing the economy’s underlying ills, calling its economic policies a “phony war” characterized by economic “mismanagement.” “Economist David Smick had it right in The Post this week when he said the administration had a three-pronged strategy: delay, delay and delay. The administration announces a rescue package but doesn’t deliver details; it promises budget discipline but saves the hard decisions for later,” while stacking the Obama “administration with politicians and former government officials,” who lack “experience managing large organizations in crisis.”

Like us, Michael Barone says that the Treasury Department and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, through their arbitrary, “ad hoc” approach to the financial crisis (such as their unpredictable and inconsistent decisions about which companies to bail out), have exacerbated the current financial crisis by leaving “players in the financial markets full of uncertainty and fear.”