Who would have thought the two Senators from Oklahoma would come down on different sides of an issue, but here we are and such is the reality of politics. I have written before of 
Senator Tom Coburn’s dislike of earmarks, but just as much as he hates them, Senator Jim Inhofe likes them, even going so far as to declare them necessary and part of his job. I have already detailed Coburn’s stance, republishing an article he wrote for The National Review, in which he debunked what he called the myths of earmarks. Even though I agree with Coburn and disagree with Senator Inhofe on the issue of earmarks, I want to include Inhofe’s argument for earmarks. Here is a portion of what he has had to say, from The Oklahoman.
Inhofe, R-Tulsa, was all over the media last week speaking against the ban, to be proposed by Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, and told The Oklahoman that he would defy it if it’s approved by current and incoming Republican senators.
“I’m not going to join a crowd that is not doing what it is supposed to do,” Inhofe said.
Inhofe said the three (speaking of Senators Coburn, DeMint, and McCain) were demagogues on the issue and that he planned to talk about their “hypocrisy” on Monday on the Senate floor.
He said he also planned to introduce legislation that he called a “solution to the problem.”
Inhofe said lawmakers have the constitutional duty to spend money and that giving up earmarks just means giving President Barack Obama — who also supports an earmark ban — more influence.
“Do you think Obama cares about Oklahoma, or even knows where it is?” Inhofe said.
The Senator has made his support for earmarks very clear, that much is true. I will say this. Neither Coburn or Inhofe are well known for backing down in the face of adversity, especially if they believe they are on the right side of an issue. Clearly, both men believe their side of the argument over earmarks is the correct one. I think it is safe to say this is going to be a battle royal.
For a much more indepth discussion about the issue of earmarks and the disagreement between Oklahoma’s two senators, please visit Fair and Biased. Steve Fair does a good job at laying this issue bare.
Earmarks make up about 1.5% of the budget. Some are worthy, but most aren’t. What about the other 98.5% of the budget?
I understand what you are saying, Harrison. Earmarks may make up a small part of the budget, but I think they are worth looking at. Let me put it this way. The Bible says that we have to be faithful in the small things before we can be faithful in the big things. If we can follow that example and root out a lot of these earmarks, ie. the small things, then we can move forward and start looking at some of the spending and waste items that cost so much more.
This is going to be an interesting battle in the senate. I actually don’t hold out much hope that the earmark ban will pass, but you never know.
Harrison, earmarks might be just a small portion of the budget and this must be part of a larger overhaul, but it is a good place to start.
I doubt the ban will pass either, Steve. There are simply too many members of Congress who think and believe he way Jim Inhofe believes. Until that changes, earmarks will probably remain a part of Congress.
I am afraid you are right, it will take several more elections like this last one before we have any hope of seeing earmarks go away–if at all.
Earmark reform (or banning) is an important issue, especially in light of the recent election mandate against big government. It might be a miniscule part of the budget, but symbolically it is the tip of the spear for the waste and fraud that is in our Federal government. It isn’t so much about the money, but what it represents, me sending my money (from Virginia) so the fed can send it to Wisconsin to build an opera-house or do a study on the Red-Headed Cockaded Woodpecker. Similar to the issues I have with the Department of Education – don’t take my money, launder it a little, then send it back to me.
Additionally, earmarks are an unfair advantage to the incumbent representative, he is able to buy votes as well as advertise his greatness (drive through West Virginia and count all the Senator Robert Byrd memorial whatevers) in a way an election challenger would never be able to do.
It is a crooked system, and the cost to the budget is the least reason for fixing it.
When did “Pork Barrel Spending” become Earmarks? I suggest we go back to the former description.
I’ve been wondering where the constitution and our Founding Father’s stood on this issue and thankfully found the answer on the blog you linked to. I think this definitely clarifies what the Constitution does or does not say.
“President James Madison vetoed Calhoun’s bill as unconstitutional. In his veto message Madison said, “Having considered the bill, I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling this bill with the Constitution of the United States. The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified in the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers. ”
Thanks for helping me see this issue more clearly Larry.
I’ve heard Inhofe talk about this several times, and from his standpoint, I am mixed on it.
From Inhofe’s standpoint, he says the money not spent goes directly to the President, and it will be used for his pet projects. I do not understand how the Oval gets its hands on unspent funds, but I can easily believe that they do.
One thing is certain, there is no discretion among many members of Congress for how their money is used. So-called medical research for outrageous studies, an airport with less than 10 flyers per day. The list goes on, and I know you know it well. I agree. We cannot trust them with a penny. Yes, this will be very interesting.
I have heard Senator Inhofe say that, but I think he is mistaken. The President has no authority to spend a single penny, other than is authorized by Congress.
Oops, I didn’t click followup comments. This should do it.
I kind of think this is more about principle than substance. By the Republicans agreeing to ban earmarks they are sending a message even though the overall impact on the deficit will be minimal. I think we the people need to see this not matter what the impact is. Earmarks are an ugly baby that is extremely unpopular. This makes it a hot potato that no one wants to handle.
While earmarks are a small part of the budget, it is a symbolic first step in limiting spending. You have to start somewhere, and if you say that little items aren’t worth the time, there are probably many thousands more “little items” to look at. Start there, and move on.
That is almost exactly what I said to Harrison in my reply to his comment. The Bible says that we have to be faithful in the small things before we can be faithful in the large things. Earmarks would be a good starting point for the GOP to show everyone they are really serious about doing the right thing.
Inhofe is depending on earmarks being spent wisely. We cannot depend on that in Washington.