Harry Reid Twists Arms to Kill Earmark Reform
By Bluey Posted in Congress | Featured Stories — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) took the Senate floor today to denounce an amendment offered by conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.) to strengthen earmark reform. DeMint's proposal, as Amanda Carpenter outlined today, includes the same language as the one passed by House Democrats.
Andy Roth at the Club for Growth has a complete breakdown of the "high political drama" that transpired today. DeMint's amendment actually had enough supporters, but Democrats managed to halt it. Reid then seized on the opportunity to twist the arms Democrats who supported it.
One Senate Republican staffer explained it to me this way:
Read on . . .
The Senate just rejected an attempt by Sen. Durbin, the Majority Whip for the Democrats, to kill a DeMint amendment to add Nancy Pelosi’s earmark disclosure requirements to the Senate lobbying reform bill. Sen. Durbin’s motion to kill the Pelosi earmark rule was rejected by a vote of 51-46, with most Democrats voting to kill the amendment. Under normal procedures, the amendment would then be adopted by unanimous consent since the Senate was on record supporting the amendment. However, Sen. Kennedy took the unprecedented step of blocking adoption of the amendment.
On only the fifth vote of the new Congress, Senate Democrats are now on record opposing common sense earmark reform -- reform that has already been adopted by the House under the direction of Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- and are on record using obstruction tactics to thwart the will of the Senate and the American public on earmark reform. Senate Democrats are also on record opposing the comprehensive earmark disclosure requirements crafted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Under the earmark definition in the underlying Senate bill, 95 percent of earmarks would have been exempt from disclosure. Under the Pelosi rule, nearly all earmarks are required to be disclosed.
Seven Republicans voted with Durbin and a majority of Democrats. They include Senators Robert Bennett (Utah), Jim Bunning (Ky.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Trent Lott (Miss.), Gordon Smith (Ore.) and George Voinovich (Ohio). Let's make sure they hear our displeasure.
Meanwhile, 10 Democrats voted with DeMint. They include Senators Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), John Kerry (Mass.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Joe Lieberman (Conn.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Barack Obama (Ill.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Jim Webb (Va.). Harry Reid will try to twist their arms until he wins.
A final vote may not happen until next week, which means there is still time to make sure the Senate enacts common-sense earmark reform.
bridge like good little trolls.
I wonder if the NYT will cover this in their daily sequence of 'accomplishments' of the first 100 hours... All the news that fits (their agenda) they print.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Is this particular move one that could have been accomplished during the time when the Republicans were in the majority?
If not, why is this such a telling event?
I do not think that crowing about how the Democrats haven't passed real reforms is something that the Republicans should be doing immediately after losing the House and the Senate.
Wait a year.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I'm commenting on the infighting between the Democrats, and the reluctance of these ethical super-heros to do away with earmarks.
But don't let me distact you from your usual Republican bashing.
Not at all.
The main thread seems to be one mocking the Democrats for blocking real ethical reforms.
I am not saying that it is good that they are blocking ethical reforms. I think that they are being "just another politician"s.
In my opinion, however, it does not behoove the Republicans to point and laugh at the ethical reforms the Democrats are failing to pass after having lost both the House and the Senate.
What some of the democrats are trying (and, apparently, failing) to do (and being opposed by their brethren) is a thing that the Republicans ought to have done while they were in power.
A question:
Is the bill one that ought to be passed?
If so, why didn't the Republicans pass one like it?
If not, isn't it good that it's being blocked?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
My own take is that I am tired of the politicians who engage in politics.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I hold out no hope for libertarians. The fact that they dislike politicians who engage in politics goes a long way towards explaining why libertarians have such little political impact. You may as well dislike actors who act and lawyers who practice law.
Don't see me as "a libertarian".
See me as "someone disgusted with both political parties".
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
When people were explaining to me that I should vote for Republicans because, goodness gracious, the Republicans might not be great but the Democrats are going to be oh-so-much worse, it strikes me as less that persuasive to point to good bills that the Democrats can't get passed that the Republicans didn't get passed either.
Personally, I think that the ethics bills are a great opportunity for the Republican minority leadership to stand up and be "bipartisan".
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The majority of the Democrats are trying to block reform. A minority of them are siding with the Republicans.
The sticking point on many questions, including earmarks, was never "the Republicans" or "the Democrats", and changing which party has control of the Senate will have little affect on those issues. It will have a large impact in other areas, mostly a bad impact for anyone to the right.
of politicians who refuse to view politics as bloodsport.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
to start saying "well if the GOP didn't pass it, when they were in power, the dems shouldn't have to pass it either?"
I hope not.
The reality is that the dems are in charge, and running on a "hey the GOP didn't do it either" defense isn't going to fly very long, and is really a dumb excuse for passing laws that continue the status quo.
I do, however, think that the "hey the GOP didn't do it either" will work for, say, the first week the Democrats are in power after the GOP lost both the House and the Senate after holding majorities in both.
Yes, the argument won't fly in a year.
I do think it is less than persuasive right now.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
...I personally favor the "these people cannot coordinate their socks" argument, myself. Particularly when they fall all over themselves to prove me correct. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
that Reid got played by DeMint. (But good popcorn-viewing theater for you and Capt. Moe T. Lane - see his diary...)
It's more a shame that he didn't coordinate with Pelosi to come up with an ethics bill the same or tougher than the House.
It is, however, a crying shame the republicans couldn't get this close in the last session with their majorities. The Club for Growth should demand a refund! =)
representin'
a 100 broken promises plan? It's looking more and more like they'll accomplish the latter in short order if they haven't already.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
and of being a high-ranking Democrat. You can get away with murder. Heck, Good Old Chappaquiddick Teddy even took Harry Reid's spear through the chest for him on this one. Meanwhile, Vegas harry laughs all the way to the bank...
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
That many politicians of all stripes are loath to give up their power to buy our votes isn’t surprising. It is also not surprising that ear marks are seen as an unethical abuse of congressional power by most Americans, and even by Democrats who preach vote buying as a virtuous endeavor.
What is surprising, or not for those cynical of the Democrat Party in general, is that they campaigned under a banner of ethical reform and transparency but when it comes down to relinquishing their unethical powers they balk, and looking at the list, so do those who have been there a long time and purchased an amount of their incumbency through earmarks.
I will never forget the exchange between Hatch and Byrd, on the Senate Floor, praising each others pork laden bills for mutual support. It was true comedy.
The irony is that the Democrats want to be seen as the honest and reform minded party but refuse to give up their secret earmarks, and it is a purely political trap that they’ve created for themselves by presenting their party as something that it is not. They've been so successful at painting themselves as ethical heros that there is simply no way they can now live up to the billing. Give them enough rope and they just can't resist coiling it around their own knecks.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
and apologize for defending his ascension.
In the first 100 hours, he has failed at what he was put there to do. As such, he will insure a continued minority.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
That's an interesting cast of characters breaking rank.
I must say that I'm floored that Sen. Ted Stevens didn't join the Democrats on this. Mitch needs to whip his whip, his Kentucky colleague, and the Utah boys into doing the right thing and crossing over so that Cheney can break the tie for the good guys.