The GOP’s Earmark War

WikiCommons/<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/US_Navy_050210-N-2383B-253_Senator_James_Inhofe_(R-OK)_questions_top_ranking_leaders_of_the_U.S._Armed_Forces,_during_the_Defense_Authorization_Request_for_Fiscal_Year_2006_and_the_Future_Years_Defense_Program.jpg">U.S. Navy</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Now that the Republicans have won a majority in the House, it looks like their first fight will be against…Republicans? The Hill reports that Oklahoma’s arch-conservative senator, Jim Inhofe (who received a perfect score from the American Conservative Union in 2009), intends to fight Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) proposed ban on earmarks. DeMint’s ban, Inhofe argues, unconstitutionally cedes congressional spending power exclusively to the executive branch.

Odds are, Inhofe admits, that DeMint’s moratorium will pass. But he’s determined to go down swinging, and call out DeMint and others for earmark hypocrisy. He told The Hill:

I know politically it’s the dumbest thing for me to say I’m for earmarks, but it would cede authority to President Obama. But McCain and DeMint are not being honest about how they define them. I’ve been ranked as the most conservative member of the Senate, so this is coming from a conservative.

I have quotes, and I’ll use them on the floor to make sure McCain and DeMint can’t wiggle out of how they define earmarks. This is an Obama-DeMint-McCain effort… I’ll lose on this, but I want to be on the record.

Also on the record: the statement released on Tuesday by Jim DeMint publicly announcing his plan to suspend earmarks, co-signed by ten Republicans including tea party-backed Marco Rubio and Rand Paul (who’s wasted no time playing both sides on the issue), Texas’ John Cornyn, and Inhofe’s fellow Oklahoman Tom Coburn. Inhofe says the tea party-backed senate newbies have been misled. “These [earmarks] have been demagogued for two years now,” he said. “It’s been presented in such a way that this is somehow conservative.” Luckily for Inhofe, he has some powerful friends on his side. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also rejects an earmark ban, citing the same argument as Inhofe: that it wouldn’t address the problem of congressional spending sprees, and would hand spending authority over to President Obama. DeMint is, effectively, picking a fight with his boss.

Meanwhile, over in the House, Speaker-in-waiting Boehner has pledged to suspend all earmarks, positioning the issue as a key plank in the GOP’s agenda for the 112th congress. It’s not clear, though, that all House Republicans are on board.

On something as central to the conservative dogma as government spending, the brewing debate in the Republican caucus is curious. It rips a gaping hole in the portrait of party unity that last Tuesday’s midterm rout seemed to paint. The lesson here: if you’re going to be the Party of No Earmarks, make sure everyone’s on board.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate