Skip to comments.Mitch McConnell bearish on earmark moratorium, GOP goals
Posted on 11/04/2010 10:07:49 AM PDT by markomalley
At a speech at the Heritage Foundation, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., made clear his skepticism about an earmark moratorium, saying that its really just a question about discretion. He didnt want to give the president a blank check, which he believes would occur once the Senate passes an earmark moratorium.
McConnell also said that he would be willing to work with the president and Democrats on energy independence, which may just mean that he would support providing more subsidies to American energy producers. He did say that he wanted to vote, repeatedly, to repeal Obamacare, knowing full well that President Obama would veto.
McConnell opened the speech with a jab at Democrats who might want to bail out Newsweek. Ironically, McConnell supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and later in October 2009, said that it was successful with a few reservations.
Mitch McConnell is volunteering to be primaried the next time he runs. Nothing like throwing away Tuesday’s victory, old geezer.
I’ll donate money to anyone who runs against McConnell in the primaries.
Mitch hasn’t gotten it.
Someone needs to give McConnell a drug test. Does this dip$hit realize what happened on Tuesday. What a %ucking idiot!
Senator DeMint for Minority Leader. Now.
Can Rand Paul occupy both Senate seats from Kentucky?
Maybe he can sit in one and prop his feet up on the other...
Better yet embolden Jim Demint donate to his foundation drain the RNC and RNCC of all their funds.
Demint is our key lets give him the power he needs to promote more conservatives leaders at the same time force the establishment to listen to him.
I don’t get this obsession with banning earmarks. If the Congresscritters don’t decide where the pork goes, then Obama and his cronies make that call.
Rush explained this perfectly yesterday: Earmarks are less than 1% of the Federal budget. It's a distraction mechanism by the Government Party.
Honest question - is it necessary to have “earmarks?” The govt takes in $$. Each agency/dept. creates a budget (with as much detail as Congress insists on). Hopefully, each dept’s budget will be looked at separately going forward.
The budget, if clean, gets passed and the funds allocated. If the budget has junk in it, it gets rejected. Same for Congress’ budget itself.
Where (honestly) do the earmarks come in? The dept budgets should have enough specificity that they don’t have extra funds for projects to study bovine athletes foot or turning the local pawn shop into a “historic site and museum.” Why does the pork have to happen?
I’ll submit maybe we’re all naive on this - if you can help me out in understanding.
Great idea! Such a move is really necessary to pound into the head of the establishment GOP that the status quo is unacceptible.
I spoke with a former state Republican committee chairman who is still active in the party two months ago. He told me the party establishment was blowing off the TEA party as a passing fad. I was dumbfounded. The revolution must continue.
An effective way to send the message is every time a Republican operative calls asking for money: (1) tell him that you are no longer a Republican, that you consider yourself an independent conservative constitutionalist, (2) tell him you will give no money to the Republican Party or affiliated organizations as long as the Party refuses to heed the concerns of the TEA party and begins to actively work to restore constitutional government. If the operative is still on the line, I like to ask why not one single Republican member of congress has been patriotic enough to question Barry’s qualifications for office.
Use up his time, and give him nothing but information. I’ve made it clear that I won’t donate money speculatively in the hope that Republicans will turn around; rather, my money will flow once Republicans start walking the walk.
If we FROZE govt. spending. No % increase anywhere in the budget what would the impact be over time?
I fully believe we need to have actual cuts in spending, however, what would a $0 increase over the next few years mean?
Does McConnell have a cognitive deficit?? We said NO!
“If the Congresscritters dont decide where the pork goes, then Obama and his cronies make that call.”
If you downsize government the pork fat gets rendered out. Problem solved.
Rush is wrong on this one. While Earmarks themselves don’t account for much, the receipt of Earmarks lead to votes for large, unnecessary spending bills. They are bribes. They were responsible for both stimulus and Obamacare. That is more than $11 Trillion over the next 10 years, well more than 1%. Neither bill would have ever passed without the bribes.
Up until a few years ago it would have “auto-balanced” the budget after a few years.
Now though I don’t think it would work.
Hate to say it, but ENTITLEMENTS must be dealt with.
I believe govt spending ACROSS the board should be AT WORST frozen, and in many cases completely eliminated.
It can’t happen overnight, but it’s time to send these cuts to Obama and let him tell the people who believes government should be doing...EVERYTHING. Then he’ll be history.
However, cutting the FDA, EPA or DEA won’t amount to jack crap on the budget...we need to go after the BIG STUFF.
Disclaimer: I am also for a strong auditing of military spending too...the amount we’re tossing to defense contractors is just as obscene as what we toss down the socialist rat hole.
This man must go. He thinks energy independence is a subsidy. We’ve turned the best oil prospecting territories over to the National Park Service. Ditto for mining.
Kill the EPA, and put most of the national park land that isn’t really national park land up for sale.
Also, tell the NRC that they can get to work approving a Thorium based reactor in the next 12 months and put the uranium reactor out of business for good.
Voila - energy indepedence, and not a dime in subsidies required. In fact, you’ll make a boatload selling all that land.
Yep, earmarks are basically taxpayers money used for the reelection of incumbents. They don’t need to go home and brag to their constituents on how much they robbed the rest of the country.
Obama advances the Progressive agenda 20 notches and Republicans like McConnell will rathchet back 10, leaving us 10 nothces worse instead of 20.
EXACTLY! Earmarks are corruption.
He’s got to go. He’s useful in the interim, however. He’s still in the minority there, which means all he can do is obstruct the reforms going on in the house. The Tea Party will still need morons in the party to run against. Steele appears to have been scared straight for now.
Woe betide him if he does. He better make some hot cider, stoke his fireplace, and tuck into a copy of the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Federalist Papers, and then come on back to work after Thanksgiving with a more Jeffersonian bent that he has at this point.
Mitch has proven he is a moron. And the staff insiders who should know better, are either corrupt or Democrats.
Olympia Snowe of Maine
Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
Orrin Hatch of Utah
Only 10 R's up for senate in 2012. Should be able to get some pickups.
It’s time to let him know that the election isn’t over yet. Time for him to either remember how to learn, or get ready to retire.
He’s done whatever damage he’s going to do. I don’t intend to leave my kids great grandchildren in de factor economic slavery.
QE2 started today. Bernanke’s decided to plunge the knife in now that the election’s over. That’s Obama’s subtle F.U. to post-liberal America on 11/4.
Dittos....Calling The Great RINO Hunter, Sarah Palin...fresh target emerging from the brush!
The better idea is to have Republican legislatures and governors require all candidates to file their birth certificate. The media and the Democrats will call us “birthers,” and call us crazy. There are other jobs to be done.
Ooops. I just meant the Barry stuff. I agree on every else.
You never refuted the original point that earmarks themselves were around only 1% of the budget.
You make a different argument, and I certainly agree with you, but it is a different point.
This is why they don’t deserve the majority in the Senate.
This is why I wanted Castle to lose. They don’t need more buddies supporting this garbage in the Senate.
That’s easy enough to refute.
They do account for a small part of the budget. However, the fact they are so unimportant to the overall budget but clearly despised by the public and yet they can’t summon the will to do away with them gives the public every reason to reasonably project they can’t find the will to impose spending cuts that can slash 10% of the budget or more.
It’s a test of their will to do face the bigger challenges before them.
Come on, Chet! They don’t have to spend that money, period.
The House of Representatives decides where that money is spent and if the Senate puts it in, the Reps can take it out.
Mitchie Boy is part of the problem, not the solution.
He sounded tough today. We will see!
Last month job #1 was to derail Pelosi and Reed. One down, one to go.
This month, and for the next two years, job #1 is to derail Barry. From what I’ve seen, he cannot win an argument claiming he is constitutionally qualified to hold office. GOP care about what the media and Dems call them; I hold the constitution more dear than that.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line in Euclidean space. That straight line, in regard to derailing Barry, is showing that he cannot demonstrate any qualifications — for the office he has currently usurped, and for the senate seat he formerly usurped.
Sure, in Euclidean space but are you sure that those 3rd graders, one in Hawaii and one in Indonesian, weren’t switched?”
In Banach spaces, like BHO, a large part of the study involves the dual space: the space of all continuous linear maps from the space into its underlying field, so-called functionals.
Think about it. :)
I didn’t hear Rush say it so I don’t know the context, but what I inferred from the original post was that Rush thinks there is no point in banning Earmarks because they are only 1% of the budget and it won’t serve the purpose of eliminating the deficits. This is the exact same arguement Obama made in the debates with McCain. I wasn’t arguing the direct cost of Earmarks to the budget, I was pointing out the indirect costs, such as Earmarks serving as bribes to get large comprehensive spending bills passed. Again, I did not hear Rush’s argument. If I inferred incorrectly, I apologize.
Based on FY 2009, that works out to about $35 Billion. That's about what we spent in procurement costs for the 187 F-22 fighters.
Surely we could find a few dozen other things to cut that are “ONLY” 1% or less of the federal budget.
One percent here, half a percent there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.
That’s how they sell us big government—a little her and a little there. We need to do it in reverse.
We will be targeting earmarkers as if they were Democrats.
There are legitimate ways to fund worthwhile projects. Earmarking is corruption.