Senator Coburn: Claims Versus Reponses on Earmarks
March 12th, 2008 by Chris KinnanThe Senate is voting this week on a one-year earmark moratorium, and some so-called conservatives are trotting out questionable arguments in defense of earmarks. Senator Coburn gave an address last night that answered these claims and his staff is circulating these arguments.
CLAIM: Earmarks are part of Congress’ solemn Constitutional duty.
RESPONSE: If earmarks were such an important constitutional duty why did Congress wait nearly 200 years before starting up the earmark favor factory? The number of earmarks went from a few dozen in the mid-1980s to tens of thousands today.
Coburn floor remarks - March 11, 2008
“The arguments we hear in defense of earmarks would be ridiculed by our Founders, after they got over their nausea.”
“Many in this body seem more interested in adhering to the constitutional scholarship of Jack Abramoff rather than James Madison.”
“This isn’t an old phenomenon; this is a modern phenomenon. This is something modern that we need to change.”
“James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was very clear on this point. He said:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers enumerated in the Constitution that are connected with it. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
“Earmarks are not enumerated powers. The only power they are is how we find ways to get ourselves reelected.”
CLAIM: Members of Congress shouldn’t leave spending decisions to faceless bureaucrats. As former House Speaker Denny Hastert said, Members of Congress know best where to put traffic lights in their district.
RESPONSE: In many cases local governments, local Chambers of Commerce and local citizens, not
Coburn floor remarks – March 11, 2008
“If we don’t like what an agency is doing, we don’t have anyone to blame but ourselves. We have the power of the purse and the power of oversight. The problem is we only use the power of the purse to spend, not to restrict.”
CLAIM: Enacting an earmark moratorium is a symbolic gesture that won’t save money.
RESPONSE: If Members of Congress decided to quit earmarking they could reduce the budget by the amount they would have earmarked. Congress is not a helpless victim to the budget rules it sets for itself. Congress has the power to unilaterally eliminate spending whenever it chooses. Moreover, earmarking drives spending higher because it is both a tool of coercion and a source of distraction from the oversight work it ought to be doing.
Coburn floor remarks – March 11, 2008
“There is a correlation between earmarks and spending, and it is this: Earmarks are the gateway drug for overspending.”
“Looking for new ways to spend money is not our job. Our job is to conduct oversight and eliminate programs that are not working. We are not doing our oversight … As the earmarks have gone up, oversight has gone down. Do you know why? Because the only thing the Appropriations staff has time to do is to barely get the bill out and then manage all the earmarks.”
“Overcoming our addiction to earmarks will help us confront the massive waste that is in the Federal budget. We have to do a top-down review of everything in this country if, in fact, we want to hold to the things that are really important, the things that are really worth our sacrifice, which is the next two generations.”
March 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Although I definitely agree with you guys on this issue, I will always be suspect of your posting an official list of talking points from a politician without any comment.
You noted that several “so-called conservatives” were against the ban. Who are they? What are they really saying? (Sorry, but I’m not gonna take Coburn—or any Senator’s—word on what their opponents are saying about them.) Where’s a link to the text of the earmark bill? Why no action items or phone numbers for the hold-outs on both sides of the aisle?
Every post here is about someone who signed the earmark pledge, but in order for us to do anything, we need to know who hasn’t signed it so we could advocate directly to them, as well as see exactly what the bill says. This is grassroots 101, Chris.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Hi Sickle, a number of Republican appropriators have been saying a ban goes too far, but its not clear how they will end up voting now that all of the major Presidential candidates have cosponsored the bill. They’ve been circulating a piece from the Chicago Tribune.
I haven’t seen the bill language, its going to be an amendment to the 2009 Budget, probably late tomorrow night.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Nobody knows what the Founders would say on this issue…that’s just nonsense. Congress doesn’t have the power of the purse? I think it does. That’s rich…claiming NOW that Congress needs to do more oversight. Where were these guys when they were actually IN CHARGE?
I agree that earmarking hinders the functions of govt. by allocating resources that must be used for a specific purpose, but getting rid of earmarks themselves will do nothing, I think, to reduce the federal budget. “Gateway drug”…blaaah… I agree that a top-down look at the federal budget (and our massive amount of laws that are on the books & not enforced) needs to be done, but if Congress would actually work 5 days a week, maybe they could get that work done.