« | »

House GOP Adopt Voluntary Earmark Ban

From The Hill:

House GOP unanimously adopts earmark ban

By Molly K. Hooper – 11/18/10

House Republicans in the 112th Congress approved a ban on earmarks Thursday morning.

As expected, the soon-to-be majority party in the House extended the ban they adopted earlier this year.

Incoming freshman and TV reality star Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) offered the ban in a closed-door session with the GOP conference of more than 240 members.

Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio) applauded his conference.

In a statement, Boehner said "earmarks have become a symbol of a Congress that has broken faith with the people. This earmark ban shows the American people we are listening and we are dead serious about ending business as usual in Washington. I applaud Rep.-elect Duffy for his leadership on this critical issue. He and the rest of his historic class of House freshmen are here because Washington Democrats refused to listen to the American people and stop the spending binge that threatens our children’s futures."

With this unanimous vote and the unanimous election of Mr. Boehner as Speaker, there doesn’t seem to be much dissension within the Republican ranks. Despite all the news media reports to the contrary.

We will admit however, that we are of two minds about earmarks. We are certainly conflicted at giving the White House entire say over how the taxpayer money allocated by Congress should be spent. Especially, this White House. (Cf. ‘The Stimulus.’)

Still, we supposed they have got to start somewhere.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, November 18th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “House GOP Adopt Voluntary Earmark Ban”

  1. bill says:

    Anything that Congress wants to can be added to the appropriate bill and then there is no discretion of the White House. It just must be done through regular order instead of the bribe and kickback process.

    Like the Secure Fence Act of 2005 said the border would be proved secure, before Obama’s AMNESTY plan is allowed. Well some things just don’t work out, do they.

  2. U NO HOO says:

    I’m confused. (So what’s new, eh?)

    Someone said that if Congress(wo)man Doe doesn’t earmark the money it gets spent by the POTUS.

    Hey, I got an idea to reduce spending, don’t budget or appropriate so much money for the POTUS to spend at his leasure.

    It is all a crock of stuff, these people are only interested in getting reelected.

    Just saying.

  3. oldpuppydixie says:

    Could it be they voted at this 100% clip because they KNEW the measure would not pass anyhow? After all, it’s EASY to be a hero when there is no danger that your stand will actually LEAD to anything, ain’t it!!

  4. Mae says:

    The House holds the moneybags. We’ll nail ’em to the wall if they don’t stop their obscene spending. Defund!

  5. MZmaj7 says:

    Why not just ban non-appropriation earmarks, so Congress holds onto the purse strings? That was Sen. Inhofe’s point a few days ago.

  6. Chuckk says:

    “A voluntary earmark ban.” Can anyone think of anything more stupid and meaningless?

« Front Page | To Top
« | »