I’m very saddened to say that some Republicans only want a temporary ban on earmarks, or they want exceptions. They are arguing that without earmarks the Congress gives up too much control to the Executive branch of the government. It’s an interesting argument.
If the expenditure associated with an earmark (and there always is…nothing Congress does is without cost, even policy related issues,) was of sufficient importance, let it be voted on by all members of Congress. Why do you need to slip it into a bill in the dark of night? Put the issue in its own bill and put it up for a yes or no vote? Easy enough? Yes and no. The President can veto such a bill without shooting down another major bill, which is where earmarks usually get inserted. The Presidents look past earmarks that direct funds where a particular Congressman or Senator want them, because they don’t want to have to refight the battle for the primary bill. So, in fact, the Congress is doing a bit of bait-and-switch. It’s the nature of our Democracy, that the President can veto a bill and Congress can override that veto. Though you may not like the make-up of Congress as it’s not likely to produce an override, it is what it is. If a worthwhile spending matter is vetoed by the President and not overridden by the Congress, why not allow us voters to express our displeasure at the voting booth as we did this past November?
Apparently a number of Republicans didn’t get the message in November. Might not have even got the message of 2008 from their free-spending ways of the past. I’d use the word “target” here, but since that’s such a venomous term these days, I’ll just say, “You better learn fast, cause your window is narrow. We will vote out anyone, from any party, that doesn’t serve the wishes of electorate.”