Postponed actually, but thank you Paul Ryan for at least preventing what was going to be a secret ballot during the lame duck period. Taking power and then bringing earmarks back would be a sure sign that the GOP was utterly useless.
As fucking useless and evil as Ryan is, I agree with him on bringing back earmarks. It’s how things get done. If I can buy your vote for say a minimum wage increase in return for a new dam in your district, great. If that means our spending is somewhat less than theoretically optimal, I’ll gladly take that in exchange for paralysis.
Only postponed until the GOP is fully in power.
I can’t tell whether Ryan is for or against earmarks; here he seems to be objecting to the “secret vote”. Which in theory is okay. But note that he’s not blocking the vote entirely; he’s just waiting until the next Congress.
Do we understand the effect the removal of earmarks had to disincentivize compromise and deal-making? Or, put more bluntly, legislative action used to be fueled by lovely, unctuous pork fat which tended to soften some of the ideological membranes separating the left and right, and to lubricate the give and take of law-making. Trimming excess fat can be done (and used to be, with varying degrees of success) through reconciliation between the houses.
Would we rather have a Congress that functions better or one which tightly limits spending for the sake of limiting spending? I would’ve suspected the answers to that question would break down ideologically were it not for the fact that conservatives love pork just as much as liberals.
ETA to shake my fist at BobLibDem for saying this more succinctly. And first.
Interesting how earmarks went away when President Obama came into office, and now that a Republican is in the White House, Republican lawmakers are again interested in bringing pork back to their constituents.
Interesting, that.
True, and we are going to see more and more of that sort of thing. I sure hope the Dems don’t spend the next 4-8 years fighting good policy using the ‘But that’s not FAIR!!!’ defense, like kids on a playground.
I don’t get it. How was stopping earmarks directed at Obama? I would have thought without earmarks it gives the executive branch more discretion in spending.
An article that might shed some light on earmarks and why their removal was well-intentioned, but disastrous.
It makes Republicans look like the “clean and wholesome” party to the electorate.
Earmarks are like “little gifts” from the federal government. If you want to make the head of the federal government look like a failure, end all those “little gifts.” Now that the Republicans are back in charge, they’d probably like to make it look like their head honcho is doing good things for the country. Throw some federal dollars back at the states and municipalities.
Ryan has generally been against earmarks, so the postponement is likely intended to defeat the measure. As for whether they are good policy, if there’s one mandate Republicans can actually claim, it’s change, because that’s what voters have wanted since 2008. Re-opening the favor factory would be a bad sign.
Just more of the ‘good old days’ thinking. The world changed, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but no change would have been the worst of all.
How are earmarks any different than a stimulus package?
I think you’re going to be disappointed and the vote will go ahead next year, only this time openly and with a receptive president.
I think they’re different in the intent, degree and frequency that they’re used.
A stimulus package is more like a big-bang event where lots of money is distributed with the intent of jump-starting economic activity. As such, the hope is that it’s distributed in a manner that will have larger effects than just the amount of money would indicate.
Earmarks are more along the line of small (in the Federal budget sense) rewards to legislators for doing something. So if Congressman Smith (R) is trying to push a certain bill through, he may include earmarks on it for projects in Congressman Jones and Robertson’s districts in exchange for their support. It’s not bribery, although that’s how many construe it. Instead, it’s the granting (or withholding) of Federal budget money for legislators’ districts and projects.
They’re sort of shady, but politics is inherently shady; the give and take of favors and influence is what makes things happen. This pie-in-the-sky, idealized view of upstanding legislators considering the merits of a bill and voting according to the nation’s best interests, their constituents’ best interests, and their personal conscience are just that- idealized, and pie-in-the-sky.
There’s a reason that Bismarck said “Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made”; it’s a somewhat unappetizing business in both cases.
Like Jon Stewart says in a recent interview w/ Charlie Rose, the GOP will have a Come To Jesus moment about the effectiveness of government. (He says a bunch more, fantastic interview.)
Is Trump the only President that could make the Republicans love Government again? Or would any Republican administration be OK?