Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Sen. Inhofe visits Enid, says he will seek to reinstate earmarking practice again
Enid News ^ | Robert Barron

Posted on 11/09/2010 1:12:01 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB

When the Nov. 2 general election is over and the lame duck session of Congress begins, Inhofe said he plans to take up the cause of earmarks again. Inhofe said he is listed as the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate by a number of conservative journals and will try to reinstitute the practice of earmarks. He said earmarks should be germane to the legislation they are attached to.

“It would be nothing short of criminal to go to all the trouble of electing great new anti-establishment senators, only to have them cede to the executive branch their constitutional power and obligation, which is exactly what a moratorium on earmarks would do,” Inhofe said in a prepared remark.

(Excerpt) Read more at enidnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bribes; earmarks; gop; inhofe; pork; senate; spending
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 11/09/2010 1:12:04 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

WTH? Can someone explain?


2 posted on 11/09/2010 1:14:13 PM PST by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote! DeMint, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

RINO!!!!!!!!!!!


3 posted on 11/09/2010 1:14:22 PM PST by cartervt2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

“It would be nothing short of criminal to go to all the trouble of electing great new anti-establishment senators, only to have them cede to the executive branch their constitutional power and obligation, which is exactly what a moratorium on earmarks would do,”

Unmitigated B.S.

“It would be nothing short of criminal”

Unmitigated drama queen.

Well, the honeymoon is over. I did not know Inhofe was such a bald face liar.


4 posted on 11/09/2010 1:15:09 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

Anyone who dares to call Inhofe a RINO needs to have their head examined. (I’m not saying you’re doing that, Wobbly Bob...)


5 posted on 11/09/2010 1:15:12 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

If Congress wants to spend money for a specific item, let them put it through the budget process and vote on it. Members of Congress should go on record for each individual expenditure they vote for.

Don’t increase revenue through taxes, reduce expenses.


6 posted on 11/09/2010 1:16:07 PM PST by saltshaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

They don’t “get it”.
They are addicted to spending like a crack ho...........


7 posted on 11/09/2010 1:17:56 PM PST by Red Badger (The House finally fell on Nancy Pelosi..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG

Money has to be appropriated one way or the other. Cuts or no, there is still “stuff” that needs to be purchased by the gov’t. A moratorium on earmarks means one of Obama’s cronies will decide where money is spent instead of legislators. That’s the short term bad. The long term good is that legislators can’t buy elections by bringing home pork.


8 posted on 11/09/2010 1:18:34 PM PST by cartervt2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

I was joking - forgot the /s


9 posted on 11/09/2010 1:19:33 PM PST by cartervt2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Earmarks wouldn’t be an issue if the states and districts kept more of their own money anyway. Better still if the individual citizens kept the money and decide for themselves what they can afford.


10 posted on 11/09/2010 1:20:23 PM PST by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

Inhofe has been a great senator, very conservative, but he needs to seriously reexamine his views on this.

Earmarks are sanctioned bribes and have infected congress with corruption.


11 posted on 11/09/2010 1:20:45 PM PST by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

One has to be a special kind of liar to make this one up:

“only to have them cede to the executive branch their constitutional power and obligation, which is exactly what a moratorium on earmarks would do,”

He is trying to distract with a statement about Obama. A very calculated lie, one can’t make up something like that as a momentary slip.


12 posted on 11/09/2010 1:21:02 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG

They don’t get it. They won’t, until the guillotine kisses the backs of their necks.


13 posted on 11/09/2010 1:21:02 PM PST by Psalm 144
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

They are not pure, they will continue to make mistakes, some campaigned as though they were ...

be not fooled.

They are but politicians and some might dare compare them to children. Behaving as sibling rivals might behave for the coveted toy that might be bestowed upon them from their parents.

Understand, we are the parents, and we control the power, we control the word “no,” and we are responsible for reigning in our wayward children.


14 posted on 11/09/2010 1:21:37 PM PST by EBH ( Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k
Money has to be appropriated one way or the other.

Or not at all.
15 posted on 11/09/2010 1:21:46 PM PST by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

Earmarks in the hands of Leftist’s be they Democrats, or RINO’s have been abused to the point we mostly understand them as evil.

Inhofe is right. Without the ability to initiate good earmarks, the new Congress will strap themselves, and frustrate the redemption of our government.


16 posted on 11/09/2010 1:21:59 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG

Earmark is where congressman get to pick where the money go to
Without the earmark, the executive branch aka Obama gets to decide where the money go to


17 posted on 11/09/2010 1:22:31 PM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k

“A moratorium on earmarks means one of Obama’s cronies will decide where money is spent instead of legislators”

Please. They could designate it in the legislation that passes through committees the normal way. Done all the time with legit projects.


18 posted on 11/09/2010 1:23:43 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Correct. Thanks for your post.


19 posted on 11/09/2010 1:23:43 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Earmarks are the Senate’s way of getting around that pesky old Constitution...........


20 posted on 11/09/2010 1:23:59 PM PST by Red Badger (The House finally fell on Nancy Pelosi..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k

That’s exactly right. While the use of earmarks has been abused by both parties, I would submit that there are projects/items/programs that are very worthwhile that are currently funded through the earmarking process.


21 posted on 11/09/2010 1:24:31 PM PST by MNGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

We’re looking at hopefully only 2 more years of this president. Well worth the sacrifice to take those ear marks away from Congress.

Looks like all the entrenched politicians are going to scream like crazy about this.


22 posted on 11/09/2010 1:24:48 PM PST by MNDude (And we were SO close to acheiving utopia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

“Earmark is where congressman get to pick where the money go to
Without the earmark, the executive branch aka Obama gets to decide where the money go to”

That is what Krauthammer said last night. Kraut said that earmarks do not increase spending.


23 posted on 11/09/2010 1:26:25 PM PST by forgotten man (forgotten man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

““It would be nothing short of criminal to go to all the trouble of electing great new anti-establishment senators, only to have them cede to the executive branch their constitutional power and obligation, which is exactly what a moratorium on earmarks would do,” Inhofe said in a prepared remark.


Operation RINO Kill (politically speaking, of course) missed this target, so now we must endure the consequence.
Sen. Inhofe is a double-talking corrupt Beltway RINO who will obstruct conservative efforts to reign in spending for the next 6 years.


24 posted on 11/09/2010 1:26:56 PM PST by J Edgar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

And who is on these committees and how do you ensure they cannot be bought off like or by a legislator? Honest question.


25 posted on 11/09/2010 1:27:01 PM PST by cartervt2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

“Earmark is where congressman get to pick where the money go to Without the earmark, the executive branch aka Obama gets to decide where the money go to”

Yes. It is about Obama! That’ll trick the idiot Tea Partiers!

Did Karl Rove think this one up? Sounds like him.


26 posted on 11/09/2010 1:27:33 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

He is not a RINO. He is a thief who is bankrupting our children.

He and all his ilk need to be removed ASAP.


27 posted on 11/09/2010 1:28:01 PM PST by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k

Like hell you say. Read the constitution! The congress should introduce CONSTITUTIONAL spending bills ONLY!! No pet projects for congressmen, senators, states and or local governments. NO PORK!!


28 posted on 11/09/2010 1:28:38 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Nuke the corrupt commie bastards to HELL!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

Remember this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2576806/posts

Inhofe attacking McLame over earmarks.


29 posted on 11/09/2010 1:29:52 PM PST by Marty62 (Marty 60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forgotten man

“That is what Krauthammer said last night. Kraut said that earmarks do not increase spending.”

Krauhammer is an idiot. Maybe he’ll get a $10,000 bonus as a “speakers fee” from Club for Growth for that B.S.

An earmark is a way to avoid scrutiny for projects from the normal committee review procedure.


30 posted on 11/09/2010 1:30:36 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k

And the president’s job is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Sorry, he does not set the agenda and he does not control the purse strings. That’s the job of We the People through our elected representatives!!


31 posted on 11/09/2010 1:31:58 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Nuke the corrupt commie bastards to HELL!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

I want to hear Inohofe’s version of events before I believe the news. What is ENID news anyway?


32 posted on 11/09/2010 1:32:03 PM PST by HOYA97 (twitter @hoya97)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNDude

People seem to be overlooking that fact that earmarks are made up of money stolen from taxpayers.

What better way of keeping dependant states, dependant. Why worry about fiscal responsibility when uncle Sam has a pocket full of crack?


33 posted on 11/09/2010 1:32:30 PM PST by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane; rockinqsranch

Except that earmarks come from a designated fund - for earmarks. Get rid of the fund and neither Congress nor the POTUS can spend the money.


34 posted on 11/09/2010 1:32:35 PM PST by apoxonu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k

“And who is on these committees and how do you ensure they cannot be bought off like or by a legislator? Honest question.”

Yes, they are corrupt, but earmark procedure is even more corrupt. Put it this way, if you can’t get other congressmen to sign off on the deal by a review process, the project is more than averagely bad.


35 posted on 11/09/2010 1:32:42 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: forgotten man
That is what Krauthammer said last night. Kraut said that earmarks do not increase spending.

Krauthammer is leaving out the concept of logrolling, to which earmarking it critical (buying support for legislation it otherwise would not garner).

36 posted on 11/09/2010 1:33:10 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I’m not disagreeing with you per se, just trying to understand this.

I think we would agree that defense spending is constitutional. So, how is that money to be spent in such a way that it’s allocation wouldn’t fit your definition of distributing pork?


37 posted on 11/09/2010 1:34:18 PM PST by cartervt2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

There does seem to be some technical truth in what Inhofe is saying, at least if Wikipedia is correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)#Defense_of_Earmarks) , which is not always a sure thing. I remain skeptical, however, that Congress, even the much improved Congress coming in next session, can be trusted to use earmarks responsibly. It’s just too easy to tack on funds for this little pet project or that.

Also, I think earmarks are but one symptom of a much larger problem. At this point, real deficit reduction is going to require saying “No” to a lot of spending programs, earmarked or otherwise. That includes making hard choices in the biggies like Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending.


38 posted on 11/09/2010 1:34:38 PM PST by DemforBush (You might think that, *I* could not possibly comment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Fair point. However, it just seems that whatever party in power will have the power to influence where that money is spent in their party’s states and districts, and a committee just seems like it would just serve as an intermediary for additional backroom deals and spending corruption.

I’m just saying I’m not sure there’s a perfect answer. It sounds good to say ending pork and earmarks, but the goal is to mitigate corruption. I just want to make sure we don’t make things worse by doing something that “feels good”.


39 posted on 11/09/2010 1:40:16 PM PST by cartervt2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k

Sorry, but your analysis is not right. Earmarks merely force monies to be spent on specific projects that a particular congress person wants. They are a perversion of the budgetary process used to reward cronies and donors. As stated above, all expenditures should be spelled out in the budget document within the baseline budget. If the congress wants specific work done, say so in the budget and force the congress to vote on its inclusion. The more specific the budget can be, the less the administrators will have leeway to mess with it and reward Obama cronies.

In my opinion, ALL government awards should be competitive except where very special circumstances exist, and then those circumstances need to be spelled out and assessed by non-biased parties.


40 posted on 11/09/2010 1:40:23 PM PST by Laserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

WTH? Inhofe’s record has been VERY conservative. I can only sort of rationalize this in the sense that giving Obama ANY leeway to make ANY decision is a bad thing, but if bringing back earmarks is the price to stop it, I’m not sure it’s worth the price.


41 posted on 11/09/2010 1:42:28 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k

Defense spending is constitutional if it’s valid and not corrupt or fraud or someone’s pet project to bring home the pork. If there is a worthwhile defense project that needs funding beyond the defense budget, then the congress should debate and vote it up or down. Don’t earmark it on a totally unrelated bill.

They don’t have time you say? B/S. Cut the damned “gay rights” debates, the socialistic debates, the endless economy killing regulatory bills, and the ninety percent of what they argue about in congress that is clearly unconstitutional and beyond their scope, and they’ll have plenty of time left over to debate and vote on genuinely constitutional issues.


42 posted on 11/09/2010 1:43:55 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Nuke the corrupt commie bastards to HELL!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HOYA97

from podcast from last night-—
hear it from the horse’s mouth.

http://www.ktlkfm.com/pages/jasonlewisshow.html


43 posted on 11/09/2010 1:44:35 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LowTaxesEqualsProsperity

Except that Inhofe is the lone stalwart against the climate change propaganda - so we may be screwed either way.


44 posted on 11/09/2010 1:46:23 PM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

I don’t think he’s a RINO and in listening to him on the radio last night, I thought he made some valid points.

All in all, I’d rather see earmarks go away.They seem to be used as bribes on wasteful crap more often than not.


45 posted on 11/09/2010 1:47:06 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cartervt2k

Which is not to say some of defense spending is not wasteful.

I’d like to see everthing cut across the board 15% for 2 years starting now. Then if/when the conservatives win the senate, eliminating alphabet agencies with a chainsaw and not a scalpel.


46 posted on 11/09/2010 1:50:48 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

I agree. He was against “climate change” before it was cool.
(before it was “climate change” and was still “warming”)

He’s been ahead of the curve on AGW and EPA bullcrap.


47 posted on 11/09/2010 1:52:35 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG
He thinks wrong on this issue....
48 posted on 11/09/2010 1:53:35 PM PST by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

“It would be nothing short of criminal to go to all the trouble of electing great new anti-establishment senators, only to have them cede to the executive branch their constitutional power and obligation, which is exactly what a moratorium on earmarks would do,”

This is B.S, and intellectually delusional.

“Earmarks” simply assume that each and every legislator has as much power and authority as the entire legislative body, and a right to exercise it. It does that because it denies that the entire body has a right to reject them, on principle. Earmarks work on the principle that by everyone in the legislative body agreeing to not question the right of anyone to THEIR earmarks, they are disenfranchising the obligations of the entire body, and granting the power that ONLY belongs to the entire body, allowing each of the individuals, to use by their sole discretion.

Mr. Inhofe claims that the Senate would be ceding power to the executive, which is a lie. “The Senate”, that is the entire Senate HAS that power. What Mr. Inhofe is actually asking is that the Senate cede the use of its full power to each and every individual Senator, where their mere one vote (earmark) determines a matter of the government’s expenses.

Its nothing other than an old-boys-club atmosphere by which the legislators cede to the themselves the right to single-handedly use the power of the entire body. They get away with it by agreeing to all do it. It needs to be outlawed.


49 posted on 11/09/2010 1:56:00 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
He's mistaken on this issue.

Period.

50 posted on 11/09/2010 1:56:14 PM PST by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson