Newt Calls for Earmark Moratorium
May 06, 2008 09:59 p.m. by Japhet Els
Republican reformer and past Speaker of the House Newt Gingerich called for a one year moratorium on earmarks as part of his plan to get his party back on track. Actually, its not so much a plan as much as a "plea." But, its worth looking at.
His fourth of "Nine Acts of Real Change" highlights the earmark issue.
While we're glad that earmarks made the list, I was hoping that more of the acts would include serious campaign finance reform goals and efforts. We know that Newt is not a big fan of the McCain-Feingold legislation and thinks it should be repealed because it limits the personal freedoms of voters. But the one-year moratorium proposition, as Ellen Miller pointed out in our discussions on the Google Group, is easy to jump behind due to the dirth of other publicized solutions. In the end, she says"proposals for reform have to be realistic. (Yes, they can be idealistic and realistic at the same time.)" While many Republicans, including Gingrich, feel that a one-year moratorium is realistic, many disagree. The fact is, there are fewo solutions being presented so naturally, the one that has gained in popularity, the one-year moratorium, receives the most attention and support.
The issue is not so much whether earmarks should be banned. If that is the goal, are we willing to hand over the decisions on who gets what federal money to the executive branch? Congress would never hand the government money clip over to White House administration officials, not just because they fear losing "the power of the purse," but because they understand that a representative from a district probably has a better idea of what the district needs are compared to an unelected appointee sitting in Washington. Well, we all hope they do anyway.
The issue is whether we can reform the earmark process to limit the corruption oozing from the halls of Congress, especially over the last decade. David Sirota, who worked for the Appropriations Committee, presented two possible starting points on the conundrum of earmark corruption:
1. Don't let the spenders also be the directors. Separate the group of lawmakers that approve spending from the ones that decide how to spend that money. Granted, this is how the process was originally setup but it has (obviously) broken down.
2. Full disclosure on all earmarks. Require full disclosure on all earmarks so that the public and other lawmakers have time to review all of them and know which member of Congress is responsible for each. This will help limit the phantom earmarks that appear at the last moment in bills about to be passed.
I think these are excellent points but am interested to know what others think about them.
His fourth of "Nine Acts of Real Change" highlights the earmark issue.
Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009. The American people are fed up with politicians spending their money. They currently believe both parties are equally bad. This is a real opportunity to show the difference.
While we're glad that earmarks made the list, I was hoping that more of the acts would include serious campaign finance reform goals and efforts. We know that Newt is not a big fan of the McCain-Feingold legislation and thinks it should be repealed because it limits the personal freedoms of voters. But the one-year moratorium proposition, as Ellen Miller pointed out in our discussions on the Google Group, is easy to jump behind due to the dirth of other publicized solutions. In the end, she says"proposals for reform have to be realistic. (Yes, they can be idealistic and realistic at the same time.)" While many Republicans, including Gingrich, feel that a one-year moratorium is realistic, many disagree. The fact is, there are fewo solutions being presented so naturally, the one that has gained in popularity, the one-year moratorium, receives the most attention and support.
The issue is not so much whether earmarks should be banned. If that is the goal, are we willing to hand over the decisions on who gets what federal money to the executive branch? Congress would never hand the government money clip over to White House administration officials, not just because they fear losing "the power of the purse," but because they understand that a representative from a district probably has a better idea of what the district needs are compared to an unelected appointee sitting in Washington. Well, we all hope they do anyway.
The issue is whether we can reform the earmark process to limit the corruption oozing from the halls of Congress, especially over the last decade. David Sirota, who worked for the Appropriations Committee, presented two possible starting points on the conundrum of earmark corruption:
1. Don't let the spenders also be the directors. Separate the group of lawmakers that approve spending from the ones that decide how to spend that money. Granted, this is how the process was originally setup but it has (obviously) broken down.
2. Full disclosure on all earmarks. Require full disclosure on all earmarks so that the public and other lawmakers have time to review all of them and know which member of Congress is responsible for each. This will help limit the phantom earmarks that appear at the last moment in bills about to be passed.
I think these are excellent points but am interested to know what others think about them.
Comments (6)
Proposal: to index each states ,individual income tax to pay fosay,r half of the cost of any federal payments to that state that are not directly paid to individuals irrespective of their location. That way we remove (at least 1/2) the FREE LUNCH character of earmarks so that when a representative votes to spend money in 'his" state, much of the cost it also born by the people in the state rather than by the rest of the country.
If this were done, then there would be much less advantage to an earmark and the citizens of the state would want the money to be controlled by their state government rather than the federal government that they had less control on.
This site seriously needs an active manager.
THEN perhaps comments directed at the issues can be offered.