New Hampshire Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte moves to ban earmarks
In what this article calls New Hampshire Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte’s first official action, she has joined 10 other Republicans calling for the outright ban on earmarks.
A letter to the GOP Senate leadership says Ayotte and the others will support a rule change placing a moratorium on earmarks when the GOP Senate Conference meets next week.
Here is what my new senator had to say about this issue:
Ending earmarks is an important first step toward getting our fiscal house in order. These special pet projects have become a symbol of Washington’s ‘pay-to-play’ culture that must be stopped, and that’s why I’m moving quickly on this urgent priority,” said Ayotte.
“Eliminating earmarks will help bring accountability and transparency to how federal spending decisions are made, while simultaneously imposing greater budget discipline.
I love the fact that she comes right out and calls earmarks a “pay to play” scheme, for that is exactly what they are; a person’s vote is secured with the promise of monetary compensation, it is nothing more that a legalized bribe.
The promise of ending earmarks is nothing new, hell, Barack Obama promised to end earmarks at one point even as he was signing a bill that contained 8,000 earmarks into law–but I believe that the healthcare reform bill, and the earmarks which guaranteed is passage, have made the American people more aware of this process than they have ever been before, and they do not like the corrupt nature of this practice. The American people are going to be watching to see whether the new Congress is serious about cracking down on earmarks or whether this was nothing more than campaign bluster.
One of Kelly Ayotte’s campaign pledges was that she would never accept earmarks in exchange for her vote, and her willingness to sign this letter shows us that she is committed to her position on earmark reform. Her opponent–Paul Hodes–claimed that by doing so she would be excluding New Hampshire from money that he would willingly bring into the state. What Paul Hodes failed to realize is the simple fact that the American people are sick and tired of politicians whose votes are secured through the use of bribery–which is exactly what earmarks are, a promise of money in exchange for a vote.
It seems to me that under the current system all votes depend on the what can you do for me and my state mentality. Most politicians can be persuaded to vote a particular way based on the promise of a new highway project, or a new museum, instead of voting in the best interest of the state, and we are supposed to applaud these politicians for their ability to bring home the bacon?
It is beyond time for the politics of the past to come to an end, it is time to end earmark spending and we have at least 11 Republican United States senators who have sent a letter to leadership to suggest we do just that. I am proud that my new senator is one of the 11, but that does not mean that anything is going to come from this. I hope it does, but until we see results I will remain skeptical that anything will change.
I hope that the Republicans are serious about this issue and I hope that they will keep this issue in the spotlight because I am not sure that there will be enough support for earmark reform moving forward in the Democrat controlled Senate, and keeping the pressure on them is the only chance we have of making any progress on this issue.
Kelly Ayotte has distinguished herself from Paul Hodes already with her first official act, and New Hampshire is all the better for it. Here is hoping that Kelly Ayotte proves to be the great Senator that I believe she can be–she is off to a good start.
America's Watchtower 
We hear this every election cycle, but fortunately the people are paying attention this time. If politicians end up back tracking on their promises they may end up as one termers. She sounds pretty good so far though. Maybe some of those freshmen in Washington are as tired of this game as the rest of us are.
LikeLike
Maybe this time it will be different, we will have to wait and see but these politicians know that we are paying attention!
LikeLike
Amen, Amen, Amen. Did I forget to say Amen? You’re right, Steve. It is way beyond time to end this practice of earmarking special projects for certain members of Congress and using those earmarks to influence the way they vote. Not to mention, the amount of money that is wasted doing that, it’s just plain wrong. Good for Kelly Ayotte!!
In my home state of Oklahoma, we have Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe as our Senators. If you will notice, you will see the two are seldom together on Capitol Hill. Inhofe has no trouble accepting every earmark he can get his hands on, but Coburn refuses to request them. When it is time for Inhofe to run for relection, I will be voting against him, at least in the primary. He needs to understand how bad this is.
LikeLike
I’ll second that Amen! I knew Kelly would bring change. I knew it! Now to get everyone else on board – not just 11! I wonder if New Hampshire residents can put pressure on the Dems and the rest of the Republicans by calling and letter writing to get this done!?
LikeLike
I will be sending an email to my other senator–Jeanne Shaheen–but I have a feeling I won’t get to far with that!
LikeLike
It looks like New Hampshire is in the same boat as Oklahoma, we now have one senator that is against earmarks, but our other senator–Democrat Jeanne Shaheen–is for them. It is time for the politicians to stop being judged by how much pork they bring home and start being judged on the laws they introduce.
LikeLike
Everytime something is abused, there’ll be some who’ll jump to judgment and essentially throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Earmarks are a perfect example. An earmark is a tool used by the legislature to ensure that a certain portion of appropriated funds gets spent on a certain project. Earmarks don’t increase spending, they direct it. Don’t think for a moment that removing an earmark from a bill will reduce the cost of the bill – the entire amount appropriated will be appropriated.
Look at it this way – without earmarks, the House, in originating spending bills, will be unable to give much detail at all when sending gobs of money to the (now) Democratic Executive. Strictly speaking, when appropriating highway funds (for example), the Congress wouldn’t be able to direct that a portion of highway funds be dedicated to the building or repair of a certain interchange or stretch of interstate.
That is to say, elected officials will be prevented from telling unelected officials how to spend the money.
Banning earmarks is just like imposing zero-tolerance policies in schools, resulting in suspending children for drawing a picture of a gun or knife. We relieve school administrators of the responsibility of exercising good judgment, and banning earmarks does the same to the Congress.
Don’t misunderstand – bridges and highways to nowhere, earmarked just to bring federal money to a state or provide a convenience to a select few, are an offense to all of us. “Protect us from ourselves” legislation weakens us all, though. Rather than ban earmarks, the Congress should explore other means to curb the egregious abuse of the practice. At least now, earmarks are on the public record – ban them in the Congress and we’ll lose all track of the decision-making process, as billions of dollars of spending are decided not by our elected officials, but by nameless, faceless bureaucrats.
Look at it this way – banning earmarks takes power from the elected representatives of the people and hands it over to the vast multitude of bureaucrats in the Executive branch. Is this really what you want?
LikeLike
And let’s not forget about the ‘cornhusker kickback” and the “Loiusiana purchase” which were part of the healthcare reform bill and were nothing more than bribes to get this bill passed. There may be some legitimate uses for earmarks, but the vast majority of them are used to buy a vote and I find it appauling.
LikeLike
As the fellow said, if you love sausages or the law, you don’t want to see either being made. Our new information age has made immediately accessible information that’s always been there. Horse-trading and deal-making has always been a hallmark of the legislative process. Efforts to change the system fade when new legislators, full of piss, vinegar and idealism, learn that they can gain support for their proposals only by promising support for others’ plans . . .
Have a wonderful day and may God bless us all!
LikeLike
The Georgia Yankee. What’s wrong with oversight of “faceless bureaucrats”. First thing we used teach new Budget Committee members (full of piss and vinegar) was that yes, we give them the money and they spend it. Before we give them the money we ask for a specific plan of projects and expenses for which they need the money. Second we called them back throughout the year to see “how they are doing”. And if they screwed up or we found out that part of their plan was BS, that budget next time got extra scrutiny or was cut.
Like any human endeavor legislating becomes better and easier with time and experience.
There seems to be at least glimmer of hope that finally the public is demanding exposure and differentiation between those who are there to legislate and those are there to make deals and horse trade.
LikeLike
It’s morning in New Hampshire…
LikeLike
…yes it is, and the sun is shining brightly!
LikeLike
The letter I sent today to Senator Greg, prior to Reed pulling the bill.
Senator Greg, first let me express my appreciation and gratitude for your service in our state and on behalf on this state. Both my wife and I have contributed many years serving in local government, both elected and appointed. We understand that good government is both essential for the community and rewarding to those who serve. I don’t see that on the national level. What I see at the national level absolutely disgusts me. Government has responsibility to govern, there are thousands of items that only government can do. I, as a citizen, cannot build a road or send an aircraft carrier across an ocean. I understand compromise; I served on board where my ideas were sometimes in majority and sometimes in minority.
The bills right now debated, in the last possible days, are basically “zombie” bills being pushed by the “political zombies” dispensed by the voters in November. I understand that the tax “compromise” might have some merit at this time, although I am not convinced that a retroactive legislature could not be worked out once the “zombies” were gone in January.
The omnibus bill is not worth the paper in the one 2,000 page copy. The “zombies” have been busy and are trying to reach into the next legislative session for months after their demise. You can’t support it in the present form. Clean CR is all we need.
I am also getting more and more furious about pundits (and legislators) trying to convince the public that all the earmarks don’t amount to rounding error in the federal budget.
Earmarks are the root of corruption in the federal government, it’s not the money, it’s the process. It starts with the $20,000 plaque in your honor in the local high school. If you get away with that, next it’s the million dollar bridge to nowhere. You get away with that, it’s the Louisiana “purchase” and “corn husker’s kick back”. It’s the legislative dope of Washington. It’s the favor you keep over the head of another senator or congressman when his bill comes up. It needs to go.
I served on budget committee in my town for 25 years and we had no problem to legislate need of the police department, town manager from paper clips, to cruisers to building roads in the town. No kickbacks, no earmarks, no rip-offs.
That’s why I am disgusted when I see how Washington does it.
LikeLike
Great letter, it looks like they have finally listened to us.
LikeLike
hjsdds: Good letter, but I still disagree. Overseeing the budget in a local government, where you can ultimately walk down the hall and see if the computer budgeted for is being used, or drive across town to make sure the road is really being repaved, is different from overseeing a national budget on a nationwide basis. I’m not denigrating the former, or your many years of service therein, just pointing out that the differences in scale are breathtaking, and not overcome simply by adding more staff.
I agree with Dennis that earmarks are a symptom of the way politics is conducted in DC, but getting rid of them won’t change that, it’ll just change the way it’s done. Instead of openly inserting an earmark in a bill for all to see, the Washington crowd will (happily) return to the smoky back rooms, where elected Representatives and Senators will trade their votes in secret and make private arrangements with agency heads and cabinet members to ensure that their pet projects are funded.
And again – outlawing earmarks won’t save a penny. Reducing spending is how money is saved. The Dems have been voted out of power in the House, where the spending bills must, by law, originate. I look forward to the clinic we’ve been promised over the next two years, but to tell the truth, I’m not holding my breath.
Here’s to a glorious Christmas to all!
LikeLike