An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The GOP And Earmarks: Selective Outrage?
In the case of earmarks, BOTH parties are unfortunately equal-opportunity offenders. Watch this must-view video of Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill who looks at the record as GOP earmark rage is in full bloom. This is mainly for those who are tired of talk show spin (on the left and right):
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “The GOP And Earmarks: Selective Outrage?”
Republicans have continued to load the budget with their own earmarks because, sooner or later, a budget is going to pass and they want their own districts and states to get money. And given the state of our economy it's hard to blame them for wanting that.
But–amazingly–Republicans also feel entitled to claim they're opponents of earmarks and government spending.
Wanting to have it both ways is a sign of irresponsibility.
Do they think we don't notice this?
I agree with you GeorgeS, the Republicans are being hypocrites on this issue. However I think we also need to apply the same standards to Obama, who has also publicly criticized earmarks but has no problem signing bills that are full of them.
So once again we have a post that really is just arguing which party has bigger hypocrites. How about we hold both of them to a higher standard?
So Joe, now you are becoming a full-blown apologist for the Democrats? Whatever happened to your righteous indignation when Republicans, on any given issue, would try to say 'the Democrats did it first” or “the Democrats are/were even worse?” What happened to 'two wrongs don't make a right?”
Those didn't use to be acceptable justifications to you when the target was Republicans. It seems now that no matter what the Democrats say or do, you are one of those now jumping to their defense with the 'it's ok, because they are Democrats, and Republicans are worse.”
You seem to have sold your soul and principles to the Party, rather than to the goals.
I'm not calling the Republicans hypocrites. I'm calling them irresponsible.
We need two parties. One of them is supposed to be in opposition. The party in opposition isn't supposed to just say no to everything, then let it all happen anyway because they reap benefits from doing that, even though they pretend otherwise.
The opposition is supposed to provide alternatives. It's supposed to negotiate.
I'm all for everyone to a higher standard. But earmarks are a sideshow.
So Joe, now you are becoming a full-blown apologist for the Democrats? Whatever happened to your righteous indignation when Republicans, on any given issue, would try to say 'the Democrats did it first” or “the Democrats are/were even worse?” What happened to 'two wrongs don't make a right?”
Agreed, the term “selective outrage” may apply to the author as well.
Joe is just being honest in his post. Both sides do it. It's part of the way things have been done. Breaking the habit will be difficult. But notice the slight dishonesty of DaGoat's own post where he says that Obama has no problem signing bills that are full of earmarks. How many bills would that be? I think the count stands at one. I'm disappointed that he did it, yes. But I also try to keep things in perspective. The amount of money spent on earmarks is chump change compared to the rest of our budget. I'd actually like to see some kind of process created specific to those items that are now slipped in as earmarks where they would be out in the open but still easily consolidated to take as little time of the Congress as possible while still getting some public exposure before a vote on any bill containing them.
But notice the slight dishonesty of DaGoat's own post where he says that Obama has no problem signing bills that are full of earmarks. How many bills would that be? I think the count stands at one.
Pretty picky there, Jim. I was referring to the stimulus bill which was full of earmarks although they tried to call them something else, plus the upcoming omnibus bill full of earmarks which Obama has said he will sign.
Bottom line is I would like Obama, the GOP, and the Democrats to stop accepting earmarks as a matter of course and stop saying “it's just the way it's done”. I'll readily admit the Bush and the GOP let me down over the past eight years, partially because the GOP base accepted poor governance just because it was coming from the GOP. Now I see the Democrats falling into the same behaviors.
So Joe, now you are becoming a full-blown apologist for the Democrats?
AR, your fingers are outpacing your thinkolator. You need to either slow down the former or speed up the latter.
DaGoat
As I recall, Obama was furious at members of his own party for loading the stimulus bill with pork. His advisers warned him that time was of the essence- so he signed the best compromise bill he could come up with. He knew it wasn't perfect, but it had a lot of what he wanted in it.
And Joe is correct in pointing out that some of the worst abusers of earmarks are Republicans.
I wasn't aware that Obama had line item veto power…. Perhaps the best thing he could do is refuse to sign any bill with any earmark. That would be truly bipartisan since both parties claim they are against earmarks.
Absolutely both Obama and the GOP are inconsistent (to use a nicer word) on this issue. I wish Obama would have been furious enough at his party to actually do something about it. His speeches after the signing of the stimulus bill were mostly lauding it and I don't remember him criticizing the earmarks. And as I said above he's about to do the same thing again with the omnibus bill.
If you lived in Washington, you would realize that no one is ever completely
happy with anything that passes in Congress. I think Obama was just happy
that the stimulus bill passed. He only got 3 Republicans on board, and they
were harshly criticized by their party for supporting it. I don't think that
he wanted to chance getting it passed a second time if he vetoed it.