Redstate

By RS Insider Posted in Congress | Culture of Corruption | Earmarks — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The RS Insider was privy to a good show in the Senate today. And by “good show”, I mean “Democrats demanding they not be subject to the earmark and ethics reforms”. Based on what I’ve been told by various parties, here’s what happened…

Late this morning, Senators DeMint, Coburn, and Cornyn went to the Senate floor to ask for Unanimous Consent to enact earmark disclosure rules. However, Senate Democrat Leadership objected. In January, the Senate had passed identical language in the lobbying and ethics bill (98-0), but that bill is now in legislative limbo because the House hasn’t moved to vote on the bill.

Apparently, ethics and earmark reform was more of a campaign priority for Democrats than a legislative priority.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the Majority Whip, objected to immediate enactment of earmark disclosure requirements, saying that new rules weren’t necessary since Sen. Robert Byrd, the chairman of the Senate appropriations committee, had just agreed to follow the rules. You see? Democrats don’t need ‘laws’ to make them ethical. If you can’t trust Robert Byrd on pork spending, who can you trust?

The untrusting souls out there, however, see three serious problems with this promise to ‘keep it clean’ in the smoky back rooms.

Read on . . .

• • AUTHORIZATIONS: Sen. Byrd’s agreement doesn’t apply to all earmarks. For example, the infamous Bridge to Nowhere was funded through an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. As a result, it would not be subject to Sen. Byrd’s declaration. The highway bill was filled with tens of billions of dollars for Bridges to Nowhere and bicycle paths to who-knows-where. It would not be covered by this new arrangement. If earmark reform doesn’t cover the Bridge to Nowhere, it’s not reform; it is political cover for the Democrats to exploit their power.

• • KING OF PORK IN CHARGE OF PORK REDUCTION?: Sen. Byrd has made promises like this before, only to abandon them when it became politically convenient. Remember the “earmark moratorium” that was promised until a “reformed process was put in place”? It was abandoned immediately upon consideration of the war (and spinach and peanuts) supplemental. Trusting Robert “Big Daddy” Byrd to police the Appropriations Committee is like locking an alcoholic in a liquor store and trusting him not to take a drink.
• 
  
• • THE “OBEY CLAUSE”: And what if the appropriations committee doesn’t honor this new comment? Well, tough. Under this arrangement, there’s no rule to cite or point of order to raise against an appropriations bill that doesn’t disclose earmarks. The Senate – and the American public – is just out of luck if appropriators eventually decide that real transparency just isn’t necessary. The new arrangement is akin to a bank robber promising to not steal again, only to object to the bank installing locks or a safe. Remember Rep. Obey pulled a similar stunt last month, arguing that he was somehow exempt from the new earmark rules. If an actual House rule can be ignored so cavalierly, how long do you think the King of Pork will abide by his letter?

And that, my friends, is your new Democratic Congress. Unwilling to abide by the laws they pass for themselves.