U.S. Sen. Richard Burr has signed on to a Republican no-earmarks pledge gaining attention in a behind-the-scenes Senate power scuffle within the GOP, reports Washington correspondent Barbara Barrett.
The pledge is the brainchild of U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wants Senate Republicans to ban earmark spending in the 112th Congress. Earmarks are congressionally directed spending that benefit home districts.
DeMint, a tea party-backed Republican who has been working to increase his influence in the Senate, has gathered support among his colleagues for giving up earmarks.
At the same time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been quietly lobbying against the ban, according to Politico, a Capitol Hill newspaper. McConnell has said he worries the ban will give more spending authority to the White House.
McConnell has support too; Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe told Politico the earmark ban was a “phony issue,” given its small role in the federal budget.
Burr’s no-earmark pledge puts him on DeMint’s side, along with several other conservative senators.
This isn’t the first such anti-earmark pledge for Burr, a Winston-Salem Republican. He promised in 2009 that he wouldn’t ask for new earmarks, though he did agree to continue sponsoring requests for some ongoing projects.
The Senate returns to Washington next week, when Republicans – including those just elected – will hash out the issue behind closed doors, at the GOP conference next Tuesday.
Comments
"You lie" © Joe Wilson
November 12, 2010 - 8:59am — natdugdahedgehog, ishley and John_Burns:
Don't get too invested in a debate over earmarks because this is likely to be yet another promise that Burr fails to live up to...
He made this same promise in 2009 and then quietly collected over a $100 million in earmarks.
Why the author of this post didn't think to mention that, I don't know.
form over substance
November 11, 2010 - 9:07pm — ishleyI regret being in the position of defending Burr, but these criticisms are unjustified. Pledging not to request earmarks is nowhere near "declar[ing] he has no intention of using [his] position to aid NC in any way."
"Refudiating" (sorry!) earmarks is a formal, procedural commitment that leaves Burr able to use his position to help North Carolina in every other way. The whole earmark issue is symbolic since they are such a miniscule part of overall spending. A pledge to avoid earmarks is the equivalent of a pledge to make appropriation requests more transparently, which should allow greater voter scrutiny and public examination of the merits of any given spending proposal.
Abandoning earmarks is not substantively diminishing NC's share of federal dollars, it is simply going about those dollars in a more straightforward, democratic (liitle d) fashion.
There will be plenty of substantive attacks on federal spending in the months to come, so let's try to distinguish between (A) formalities that constitute symbolic improvements in our appropriations procedures--which are good--and (Z) arbitrary attacks on programs because of a perceived need to cut spending across the board with out consideration of what spending is truly in the public interest.
If a project deserves funding, why wouldit be funded through a sneaky procedure like an earmark? A valid project should be able to stand on its own two feet and win the support of the House on its merits.
Let's be clear what this means
November 11, 2010 - 3:35pm — John_BurnsA man just ran and won reelection to the U.S. Senate to represent North Carolina and has now declared he has no intention of using that position to aid North Carolina in any way.
Just so we make that clear.
Good policy...
November 11, 2010 - 10:29am — ishleyI didn't vote for Burr, and I can't imagine that I will in 2016, but this is a good move on his part.
First, renouncing earmarks doesn't mean Burr can't work to bring federal dollars to NC. His pledge just means that he will pursue federal dollars on the merits of the proposed project as part of the regular budgeting process instead of slipping the appropriation into some obscure section of an unrelated bill.
Second, if every Senator signs on, then the playing field between the states remains level, just on a higher plane. NC suffers no relative detriment.
I like this idea and would like to see the Dems sign on too.
Great. I'm glad we elected
November 10, 2010 - 9:35pm — dahedgehogGreat. I'm glad we elected a dude who refuses to fight to direct programs to North Carolina.